Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 19/137,208 filed on 06/09/2025.
Claims 1 – 12 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/09/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. 101 requires that a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. MPEP 2106. The four eligible categories of invention include: (1) process which is an act, or a series of acts or steps, (2) machine which is an concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices, (3) manufacture which is an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery, and (4) composition of matter which is all compositions of two or more substances and all composite articles, whether they be the results of chemical union, or of mechanical mixture, or whether they be gases, fluids, powders or solids. MPEP 2106(I).
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claims in light of the specification encompasses transitory signals. But, transitory signals are not within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. non-statutory subject matter). See MPEP 2106(I). However, claims directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium may qualify as a manufacture and make the claim patent-eligible subject matter. MPEP 2106(I). Therefore, amending the claims to recite a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” would resolve this issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites “[Claim 11] A computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream generated by the image encoding method according to Claim 6”. Claim 11 is directed to a computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream clauses that appear to describe how the bitstream is processing or generating. These elements or steps are not performed by an intended computer, and the bitstream is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for storing the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the generation of the bitstream and intended computer system. Therefore, those claim elements are not given patentable weight. Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. See MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming/ instructions, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a storage for information or data that is not meant for being executed, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight.
The Examiner suggests that the claim be amended so that it is directed to a functional relationship. For example, in this particular case, the claim should instead be recited as “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a computer program and a bitstream, wherein when executed by a processor, the computer program causes the processor to implement an encoding method to generate the bitstream according to claim 6, and the encoding method comprises:”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanoh et al. (US 2022/0264093 A1) in view of Patrick et al. (“Non-EE2: Non-Separable Primary Transform for Intra Coding”, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29, 28th Meeting, Mainz, DE, 20–28 October 2022).
Regarding claim 1, Kanoh discloses: “an image decoding method [see para: 0117; a decoding method according to one aspect of the present disclosure is a decoding method of decoding a video], comprising:
obtaining residual information from a bitstream [see para: 0148; Subtractor 104 subtracts a prediction signal (prediction sample) from an original signal (original sample) per block split by splitter 102. In other words, subtractor 104 calculates prediction errors (also referred to as residuals) of a block to be encoded (hereinafter referred to as a current block). Subtractor 104 then outputs the calculated prediction errors to transformer 106. And see para: 0053; A decoder performs operations equivalent to those performed by the encoder. Specifically, the decoder decodes the data of the image. Next, the decoder performs inverse quantization, an inverse secondary transform, and an inverse primary transform on the data of the image];
deriving transform coefficients of a current block based on the residual information [see para: 0259; Inverse quantizer 204 inverse quantizes quantized coefficients of a block to be decoded (hereinafter referred to as a current block), which are inputs from entropy decoder 202. More specifically, inverse quantizer 204 inverse quantizes quantized coefficients of the current block based on quantization parameters corresponding to the quantized coefficients. Inverse quantizer 204 then outputs the inverse quantized coefficients (i.e., transform coefficients) of the current block to inverse transformer 206];
determining a non-separable primary transform (NSPT) kernel for the current block based on a transform index of the current block [see para: 0315; a transform basis for the separable primary transform and a transform basis for the non-separable primary transform can be also expressed as a separable primary transform basis and a non-separable primary transform basis, respectively], wherein the transform index specifies any one of a plurality of NSPT kernel candidates belonging to a NSPT set of the current block [see para: 0153; The transform types include, for example, DCT-II, DCT-V, DCT-VIII, DST-I, and DST-VII. FIG. 3 is a chart indicating transform basis functions for each transform type. In FIG. 3, N indicates the number of input pixels. For example, selection of a transform type from among the plurality of transform types may depend on the prediction type (intra prediction and inter prediction), and may depend on intra prediction mode];
reconstructing the current block based on the residual samples of the current block, wherein the backward NSPT is applied based on a size of the current block belonging to a group of one or more block sizes to which the NSPT is applicable [KANOH see para: 0265; Adder 208 reconstructs the current block by summing prediction errors, which are inputs from inverse transformer 206, and prediction samples, which is an input from prediction controller 220. Adder 208 then outputs the reconstructed block to block memory 210 and loop filter 212].
Kanoh does not explicitly disclose: “applying a backward NSPT to at least one of the transform coefficients of the current block based on the NSPT kernel for the current block to derive residual samples of the current block”.
However, Patrick, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “applying a backward NSPT to at least one of the transform coefficients of the current block based on the NSPT kernel for the current block to derive residual samples of the current block [see page1; In ECM-6.0 [1], LFNST can be applied together with separable DCT-II as the primary transform. Three classes of LFNST are supported, which are applied on the following TB sizes:
LFNST4 is applied on blocks of size 4xN/Nx4 (N
≥
4)
LFNST8 is applied on blocks of size 8xN/Nx8 (N
≥
8)
LFNST16 is applied on blocks of size MxN (M, N
≥
16)
Non-separable transforms have the potential to efficiently decorrelate directional patterns at the cost of large kernel sizes. LFNST is a non-separable secondary transform applied on the DCT-II coefficients, which is particularly beneficial in cases where separable DCT-II cannot decorrelate the residual data well. In these cases however, the DCT-II step may be omitted entirely and instead, NSPT may be used directly on the residual data. The potential of NSPT in ECM has been recently shown using sequence-based training and by explicitly signaling the usage of NSPT [3]];
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the encoding and decoding method disclosed by Kanoh to add the teachings of Patrick as above, in order to pair block-size-aware NSPT use with explicit kernel selection through a transform index and applying inverse NSPT to coefficients and reconstruct the block to derive residual samples as described in above paragraphs [Patrick see page: 1].
Regarding claim 2, Kanoh and Patrick disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Kanoh does not explicitly disclose: “wherein the NSPT set for the NSPT is determined as any one of 35 pre-defined NSPT sets”.
However, Patrick, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein the NSPT set for the NSPT is determined as any one of 35 pre-defined NSPT sets [see page: 1-2; The NSPTs in this proposal follow the design of LFNST, i.e. 3 candidates and 35 sets, chosen based on the intra mode. The kernel sizes are as follows:
• NSPT4x4: 16x16
• NSPT4x8 / NSPT8x4: 32x20
• NSPT8x8: 64x32
Therefore, 12 and 32 coefficients are zeroed-out for NSPT4x8/NSPT8x4 and NSPT8x8 respectively, Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the encoding and decoding method disclosed by Kanoh to add the teachings of Patrick as above, in order to pair block-size-aware NSPT use with explicit kernel selection through a transform index and NSPT uses 35 transform sets dependent on an intra mode and three candidates [Patrick see page: 1 - 2].
Regarding claim 3, Kanoh and Patrick disclose all the limitation of claim 2 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Kanoh does not explicitly disclose: “, wherein each of the 35 NSPT sets includes three NSPT kernel candidates”
However, Patrick, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein each of the 35 NSPT sets includes three NSPT kernel candidates [see page: 1- 2; The NSPTs in this proposal follow the design of LFNST, i.e. 3 candidates and 35 sets, chosen based on the intra mode. The kernel sizes are as follows:
• NSPT4x4: 16x16
• NSPT4x8 / NSPT8x4: 32x20
• NSPT8x8: 64x32
Therefore, 12 and 32 coefficients are zeroed-out for NSPT4x8/NSPT8x4 and NSPT8x8 respectively, Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the encoding and decoding method disclosed by Kanoh to add the teachings of Patrick as above, in order to pair block-size-aware NSPT use with explicit kernel selection through a transform index and NSPT uses 35 transform sets dependent on an intra mode and three candidates [Patrick see page: 1 - 2].
Regarding claim 4, Kanoh and Patrick disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Kanoh does not explicitly disclose: “wherein the group includes at least one of 4x4, 4x8, 8x4, 8x8, 16x8, 8x16, 16x4, or 4x16”.
However, Patrick, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein the group includes at least one of 4x4, 4x8, 8x4, 8x8, 16x8, 8x16, 16x4, or 4x16 [see page: 2; The NSPTs in this proposal follow the design of LFNST, i.e. 3 candidates and 35 sets, chosen based on the intra mode. The kernel sizes are as follows:
• NSPT4x4: 16x16
• NSPT4x8 / NSPT8x4: 32x20
• NSPT8x8: 64x32
Therefore, 12 and 32 coefficients are zeroed-out for NSPT4x8/NSPT8x4 and NSPT8x8 respectively, Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the encoding and decoding method disclosed by Kanoh to add the teachings of Patrick as above, in order to pair block-size-aware NSPT use with explicit kernel selection through a transform index and NSPT is used when a block size is one of 4x4, 4x8, 8x4, and 8x8 [Patrick see page: 1 - 2].
Regarding claim 5, Kanoh and Patrick disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Kanoh does not explicitly disclose: “wherein, based on the size of the current block being 16x4, a number of transform coefficients to which the backward”.
However, Patrick, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein, based on the size of the current block being 16x4, a number of transform coefficients to which the backward [see page1; In ECM-6.0 [1], LFNST can be applied together with separable DCT-II as the primary transform. Three classes of LFNST are supported, which are applied on the following TB sizes:
LFNST4 is applied on blocks of size 4xN/Nx4 (N
≥
4)
LFNST8 is applied on blocks of size 8xN/Nx8 (N
≥
8)
LFNST16 is applied on blocks of size MxN (M, N
≥
16)
Non-separable transforms have the potential to efficiently decorrelate directional patterns at the cost of large kernel sizes. LFNST is a non-separable secondary transform applied on the DCT-II coefficients, which is particularly beneficial in cases where separable DCT-II cannot decorrelate the residual data well. In these cases however, the DCT-II step may be omitted entirely and instead, NSPT may be used directly on the residual data. The potential of NSPT in ECM has been recently shown using sequence-based training and by explicitly signaling the usage of NSPT [3]. And see page: 2];
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the encoding and decoding method disclosed by Kanoh to add the teachings of Patrick as above, in order to pair block-size-aware NSPT use with explicit kernel selection through a transform index and LFNST is applied to each of left two 4x4 regions with respect to a 16x4 block [Patrick see page: 1 - 2].
Regarding claim 6, 11, 12, claim 6, 11 and 12 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 1 but for encoding method.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 3.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 4.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Peringassery Krishnan et al (US 12,114,014 B2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Masum Billah whose telephone number is (571)270-0701. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9 - 5 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jamie J. Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MASUM BILLAH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights