DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim under US PRO 63707515 filed on 10/15/2024.
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 (pre-AIA ), 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.
Claims 7-9 are 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 6 claims a Karhunen-Loeve transform (KLT), however, claims 7-9 use the abbreviation is KTL. Examiner believes this is a typo, requiring amendments. In the event that it is not a typo, Examiner asks Applicant to define a KTL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krishnan et al, US20220337854A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Krishnan discloses a method of video decoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors, the method comprising:
receiving a video bitstream comprising a plurality of blocks that includes a current block (Krishnan [0021] – referring to FIG. 2, a current block (201) comprises samples that have been found by the encoder during the motion search process to be predictable from a previous block of the same size that has been spatially shifted…receiving a coded video bitstream for a data block);
selecting, for the current block, an inverse data driven transform (DDT) from a set of inverse DDTs, wherein each inverse DDT in the set of inverse DDTs is restricted to an 8-bit length (Krishnan [0145] – there may be a total of 4 transform sets and 2 non-separable transform matrices (kernels) per transform set for used in LFNST. These kernels may be pre-trained offline and they are thus data driven); and
reconstructing the current block by applying the inverse DDT to coded information of the current block (Kirshnan [0062] – the intra picture prediction unit (552) may generate a block of the same size and shape of the block under reconstruction using surrounding block information that is already reconstructed and stored in the current picture buffer (558). The current picture buffer (558) buffers, for example, partly reconstructed current picture and/or fully reconstructed current picture. The aggregator (555), in some implementations, may add, on a per sample basis, the prediction information the intra prediction unit (552) has generated to the output sample information as provided by the scaler/inverse transform unit (551)).
Regarding Claim 2, Krishnan discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the set of DDTs includes an 8-point DDT and a 16- point DDT (Krishnan [0132] – Turning to the actual primary transform, in some example implementations, a 2-D transform process may involve a use of hybrid transform kernels (which, for example, may be composed of different 1-D transforms for each dimension of the coded residual transform block). Example 1-D transform kernels may include but are not limited to: a) 4-point, 8-point, 16-point, 32-point, 64-point DCT-2; [0145] – there may be a total of 4 transform sets and 2 non-separable transform matrices (kernels) per transform set for used in LFNST. These kernels may be pre-trained offline and they are thus data driven).
Regarding Claim 3, Krishnan discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the set of DDTs includes one or more flipped DDTs (Krishnan [0132] – Turning to the actual primary transform, in some example implementations, a 2-D transform process may involve a use of hybrid transform kernels (which, for example, may be composed of different 1-D transforms for each dimension of the coded residual transform block). Example 1-D transform kernels may include but are not limited to: a) 4-point, 8-point, 16-point, 32-point, 64-point DCT-2; [0145] – there may be a total of 4 transform sets and 2 non-separable transform matrices (kernels) per transform set for used in LFNST. These kernels may be pre-trained offline and they are thus data driven).
Regarding Claim 6, Krishnan discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the DDT is generated using a Karhunen-Loeve transform (KLT) on a one dimensional (1D) residual sample set (Krishnan [0155] – the primary transform type may include at least one of: a Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT) type 1 through DCT type 8; an Asymmetric Discrete Sine Transform (ADST); a Discrete Sine Transform (DST) type 1 through DST type 8; a Line Graph Transform (LGT); or a Karhunen-Loeve Transform (KLT)).
[112 KTL/KLT] Regarding Claim 7, Krishnan discloses the method of claim 6, wherein generating the DDT comprises generating a normalized set of KTL basis vectors by normalizing a set of KTL basis vectors (Krishnan [0142] – core (primary) transform coefficients. Specifically, when the further reduced 16×48 RST matrices are applied instead of the 16×64 RST with the same transform set configuration, the non-separable secondary transformation would take as input the vectorized 48 matrix elements from three 4×4 quadrant blocks of the 8×8 primary coefficient block).
Regarding Claim 8, Krishnan discloses the method of claim 7, wherein generating the DDT comprises generating a scaled set of KTL basis vectors by scaling the normalized set of KTL basis vectors (Krishnan [0155] – the primary transform type may include at least one of: a Karhunen-Loeve Transform (KLT); [0142] – core (primary) transform coefficients. Specifically, when the further reduced 16×48 RST matrices are applied instead of the 16×64 RST with the same transform set configuration, the non-separable secondary transformation would take as input the vectorized 48 matrix elements from three 4×4 quadrant blocks of the 8×8 primary coefficient block; [0063] – the output samples of the scaler/inverse transform unit (551) can pertain to an inter coded, and potentially motion compensated block).
Regarding Claim 9, Krishnan discloses the method of claim 8, wherein generating the DDT comprises generating a tuned set of KTL basis vectors by tuning the scaled set of KTL basis vectors over a dynamic range, wherein the DDT is generated from the tuned set of KTL basis vectors (Krishnan [0072] – Parameters set by the controller (650) can include rate control related parameters (picture skip, quantizer, lambda value of rate-distortion optimization techniques, ... ), picture size, group of pictures (GOP) layout, maximum motion vector search range, and the like; [0142] – core (primary) transform coefficients. Specifically, when the further reduced 16×48 RST matrices are applied instead of the 16×64 RST with the same transform set configuration, the non-separable secondary transformation would take as input the vectorized 48 matrix elements from three 4×4 quadrant blocks of the 8×8 primary coefficient block; [0063] – the output samples of the scaler/inverse transform unit (551) can pertain to an inter coded, and potentially motion compensated block).
With regard to claim 10, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 1 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 1 is applied to claim 10. [The Krishnan reference further discloses the teachings in an encoding embodiment (see Krishnan Fig.7)]
Regarding Claim 11, Krishnan discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising signaling an indicator for the DDT in the video bitstream (Krishnan [0061] – scaler/inverse transform unit (551) may receive a quantized transform coefficient as well as control information, including information indicating which type of inverse transform to use, block size, quantization factor/parameters, quantization scaling matrices; [0145] – transform sets and 2 non-separable transform matrices (kernels) per transform set for used in LFNST. These kernels may be pre-trained offline and they are thus data driven).
Regarding Claim 12, Krishnan discloses the method of claim 10, wherein encoding the current block by applying the DDT comprises generating a plurality of transform coefficients by applying the DDT to a residual block corresponding to the current block, and wherein the plurality of transform coefficients are signaled in the video bitstream (Krishnan [0099] – residue calculator (723) may be configured to calculate a difference (residue data) between the received block and prediction results for the block selected from the intra encoder (722) or the inter encoder (730). The residue encoder (724) may be configured to encode the residue data to generate transform coefficients. For example, the residue encoder (724) may be configured to convert the residue data from a spatial domain to a frequency domain to generate the transform coefficients. The transform coefficients are then subject to quantization processing to obtain quantized transform coefficients).
With regard to claim 13, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 2 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 2 is applied to claim 13.
With regard to claim 14, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 3 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 3 is applied to claim 14.
With regard to claim 15, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 6 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 6 is applied to claim 15.
Claim(s) 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang, US 2014/0086333 A1.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18, along with dependent claims 19 and 20, claim a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III).
The memory storing the claimed bitstream in claim 18 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Wang which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream.
Wang discloses, a bitstream of compressed video data, including a computer readable storage medium storing the compressed non-transitory video data (Wang [0060] and [0044]-[0045] – Video encoder 20” implemented as a variety of suitable circuitry such as one or more microprocessors).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 16, 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR SHAHNAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-0707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 571-272-7383. 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.
/AMIR SHAHNAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights