DETAILED ACTION
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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged (US Provisional Application 63/656,179 filed on June 5th, 2024).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “NO” and “YES” [Figures 7A, 7B, 8, and 9].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation – Functional Analysis
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “the processor configured to …” in claim 9.
The Examiner notes one of ordinary skill in the art would afford the claimed “process” status as connoting sufficient structure and thus not invoke Functional Analysis.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 8 and 16 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 16 recites the limitation "another transform block" in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, the claimed “another transform block” has no relationship to the “transform block” claimed and thus the claim has Indefinite metes and bounds. Additionally, the claims are Indefinite as no determination to a second threshold value is made to have a response to.
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 (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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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(s) 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishna, et al (US PG PUB 2022/0030274 A1 referred to as “Krishna” throughout), and further in view of Peringassery Krishnan, et al. (US PG PUB 2025/0247561 A1 referred to as “Peri” throughout) and Nalci, et al. (US PG PUB 2024/0040151 A1 referred to as “Nalci” throughout).
Regarding claim 1, see claim 9 which the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 2, see claim 10 which the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 3, see claim 11 which the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 4, see claim 12 which the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 5, see claim 13 which the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 6, see claim 14 which the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 7, see claim 15 which the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 8, see claim 16 which the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 17, see claim 9 which the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 18, see claim 2 which the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 19, see claim 3 which the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 20, see claim 4 which the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 9, Krishna teaches a variety of block size considerations for using to select transform sets. Peri teaches a variety of subsets based on block size and entropy coding considerations based on the prediction mode used (e.g. intra or inter). Nalci teaches additional considerations based on block size which substitutions taught by Krishna may be used in the assignments of transform subsets used.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify or apply the teachings of Krishna to the tables and transform set selection as taught by Peri and include the entropy coding considerations and to make modifications to Nalci’s transform sets. The combination teaches
a processor, the processor configured to execute instructions to [Krishna Figures 1, 2, and 7 (see at least reference characters 741, 742, 743, and 744) as well as Paragraphs 52, 67, 75 (processor based implements of the codec), and 183 – 187 (processors and obvious variants to execute software instructions)]:
identify a long transform type to apply to a long side of a transform block and a short transform type to apply to a short side of the transform block [Krishna Figures 5 – 6 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 103 – 107 (using the maximum between the block dimensions for the block size to select transform types and the minimum of the length and width of the block is an obvious variants of the “short” feature claimed also horizontal and vertical direction transforms are considered), 116 – 131 (possible sets for vertical and horizontal transforms to use and considerations based on block size), 144 – 154 (block size threshold to select set of transform types)], wherein to identify the long transform type and the short transform type comprises to:
determine that the long side is equal to a first threshold value [Krishna Figures 5 – 6 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 103 – 107 and 116 – 129 (suggested a threshold of N = 32 with short / long side determinations) and 144 – 154 (threshold / block size comparison) where the block size can be in combination with the tables of Peri Tables 2 and 3 (see DCT and identity transform available at 32 x 32 block size in Table 2 suggesting a N = 32 threshold) as well as Paragraphs 78 – 81 and 86 – 91 (horizontal and vertical transforms available and suggested threshold / points for transforms needed and ratios of blocks to suggest long / short size (non-square blocks))]; and
in response to determining that the long side is equal to the first threshold value, code the long transform type, the long transform type being one of a discrete cosine transform or an identity transform [Krishna Figures 5 – 6 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 103 – 107 and 116 – 129 (suggested a threshold of N = 32 as equal to a 32 x 32 block or a long side of 32 with short / long side determinations) and 144 – 154 (threshold / block size comparison) where the block size can be in combination with the tables of Peri Tables 2 and 3 (see DCT and identity transform available at 32 x 32 block size in Table 2) as well as Paragraphs 77 – 81 and 86 – 91 (horizontal and vertical transforms available and sizes of transforms (as thresholds)) or Nalci Figures 5 – 8 (subfigures included) and Tables 2 and 3 (see vertical / horizontal mode for transform sets) in which for a 32x32 block (or larger) the DCT and IDTX transforms are available ) as well as Paragraphs 8 – 9 (2D transforms have short / long transform applications based on dimension rendering obvious the claim transforms to one of ordinary skill in the art)]; and
apply the long transform and the short transform type [Krishna Figures 3 – 5 (subfigures included and see at least reference characters 351 and 203 where in view of Nalci Figure 1 (see “transform” block) as well as Paragraphs 5 – 9 would render obvious applying the derived transforms) as well as Paragraphs 82 – 92 (transforms to perform by the coder and the inverse in a decoder)].
The motivation to combine Peri with Krishna is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of signaling transform sets [Peri Paragraph 2] in order to improve video coding efficiency by selectively signaling transform information [Krishna Paragraphs 5 – 7 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
The motivation to combine Nalci with Peri and Krishna is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of encoding / decoding video data [Nalci Paragraph 2] in order to improve coding efficiency [Nalci Paragraphs 5 – 7 and 30 – 31 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Krishna, Peri, and Nalci which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 10, Krishna teaches a variety of block size considerations for using to select transform sets. Peri teaches a variety of subsets based on block size and entropy coding considerations based on the prediction mode used (e.g. intra or inter). Nalci teaches additional considerations based on block size which substitutions taught by Krishna may be used in the assignments of transform subsets used.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify or apply the teachings of Krishna to the tables and transform set selection as taught by Peri and include the entropy coding considerations and to make modifications to Nalci’s transform sets. The combination teaches
in response to determining that the short side is equal to the first threshold value, code the short transform type, the short transform type being one of the discrete cosine transform or the identity transform [Krishna Figures 5 – 6 (subfigures included where the DCT and IDTX transforms are applied in the vertical / horizontal directions) as well as Paragraphs 103 – 107 and 116 – 129 (suggested a threshold of N = 32 as equal to a 32 x 32 block or a long side of 32 with short / long side determinations) and 144 – 154 (threshold / block size comparison) where the block size can be in combination with the tables of Peri Tables 2 and 3 (see DCT and identity transform available at 32 x 32 block size in Table 2) as well as Paragraphs 77 – 81 and 86 – 91 (horizontal and vertical transforms available and sizes of transforms (as thresholds)) or Nalci Figures 5 – 8 (subfigures included) and Tables 2 and 3 (see vertical / horizontal mode for transform sets – Combine with Krishna’s obvious variants on block size determinations) in which for a 32x32 block (or larger) the DCT and IDTX transforms are available ) as well as Paragraphs 8 – 9 (2D transforms have short / long transform applications based on dimension rendering obvious the claim transforms to one of ordinary skill in the art)].
See claim 9 for the motivation to combine Krishna, Peri, and Nalci.
Regarding claim 11, Krishna teaches a variety of block size considerations for using to select transform sets. Peri teaches a variety of subsets based on block size and entropy coding considerations based on the prediction mode used (e.g. intra or inter). Nalci teaches additional considerations based on block size which substitutions taught by Krishna may be used in the assignments of transform subsets used.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify or apply the teachings of Krishna to the tables and transform set selection as taught by Peri and include the entropy coding considerations and to make modifications to Nalci’s transform sets. The combination teaches
in response to determining that the short side is less than the first threshold value, code the short transform type for the transform block, the short transform type being one of the discrete cosine transform, an asymmetric discrete sine transform, a flipped asymmetric discrete sine transform, or the identity transform [Krishna Figures 5 – 6 (subfigures included where the DCT and IDTX transforms are applied in the vertical / horizontal directions) as well as Paragraphs 103 – 107 and 116 – 129 (suggested a threshold of N = 32 with short / long side determinations where transform sets may include flipped DST transforms and where the shorter side in a rectangular / non-square block contains a flipped DST transform or asymmetric transform (Paragraph 129)) and 144 – 154 (threshold / block size comparison) where the block size can be in combination with the tables of Peri Tables 2 and 3 (see DCT and identity transform available at 32 x 32 block size in Table 2) as well as Paragraphs 77 – 81 and 86 – 91 (horizontal and vertical transforms available and sizes of transforms (as thresholds)), 108 and 129 (flipped DST or asymmetric DST transforms available in transform dets) or Nalci Figures 5 – 8 (subfigures included) and Tables 2 and 3 (see vertical / horizontal mode for transform sets – Combine with Krishna’s obvious variants on block size determinations) in which for a 32x32 block (or larger) the DCT and IDTX transforms are available ) as well as Paragraphs 8 – 9 (2D transforms have short / long transform applications based on dimension rendering obvious the claim transforms to one of ordinary skill in the art and includes flipped transforms)].
See claim 9 for the motivation to combine Krishna, Peri, and Nalci.
Regarding claim 12, Krishna teaches a variety of block size considerations for using to select transform sets. Peri teaches a variety of subsets based on block size and entropy coding considerations based on the prediction mode used (e.g. intra or inter). Nalci teaches additional considerations based on block size which substitutions taught by Krishna may be used in the assignments of transform subsets used.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify or apply the teachings of Krishna to the tables and transform set selection as taught by Peri and include the entropy coding considerations and to make modifications to Nalci’s transform sets. The combination teaches
select a probability model for coding the long transform type, wherein the probability model is selected based on whether a prediction block associated with the transform block is predicted using an inter prediction mode or an intra prediction mode [Krishan Figure 4 (see at least reference character 432 and 445) as well as Paragraphs 70 – 77 (entropy coding) to be modified by Peri Figures 2 – 3 and 6 (subfigures included and see at least reference character 214) as well as Paragraphs 39 – 40 and 107 (entropy encoding) and 95 – 102 (contexts / probability model (Paragraph 98 renders as obvious variants) based on the prediction mode to code the transform sets (Peri Paragraphs 87 – 91) selected in Tables 2 – 5)].
See claim 9 for the motivation to combine Krishna, Peri, and Nalci.
Regarding claim 13, Krishna teaches a variety of block size considerations for using to select transform sets. Peri teaches a variety of subsets based on block size and entropy coding considerations based on the prediction mode used (e.g. intra or inter). Nalci teaches additional considerations based on block size which substitutions taught by Krishna may be used in the assignments of transform subsets used.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify or apply the teachings of Krishna to the tables and transform set selection as taught by Peri and include the entropy coding considerations and to make modifications to Nalci’s transform sets. The combination teaches
encode the long transform type into a compressed bitstream [Krishan Figure 4 (see at least reference character 432 and 445) as well as Paragraphs 70 – 77 (entropy coding) to be modified by Peri Figures 2 – 3 and 6 (subfigures included and see at least reference character 214) as well as Paragraphs 39 – 40 and 105 – 107 (entropy encoding information to a bitstream) and 95 – 102 (contexts / probability model (Paragraph 98 renders as obvious variants) based on the transform sets (Peri Paragraphs 87 – 91 and 114 at least) selected in Tables 2 – 5)].
See claim 9 for the motivation to combine Krishna, Peri, and Nalci.
Regarding claim 14, Krishna teaches a variety of block size considerations for using to select transform sets. Peri teaches a variety of subsets based on block size and entropy coding considerations based on the prediction mode used (e.g. intra or inter). Nalci teaches additional considerations based on block size which substitutions taught by Krishna may be used in the assignments of transform subsets used.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify or apply the teachings of Krishna to the tables and transform set selection as taught by Peri and include the entropy coding considerations and to make modifications to Nalci’s transform sets. The combination teaches
decode the long transform type from a compressed bitstream [Krishan Figure 3 (see at least reference characters 210, 312, 310, 320 and 321) as well as Paragraphs 52 – 55 and 70 – 73 (entropy decoding the bitstream / channel / video data) with encoded data in Paragraphs 74 – 77 to be modified by Peri Figures 2 – 3 and 6 (subfigures included and see at least reference character 218 and 254) as well as Paragraphs 33 – 34 and 45 – 49 (entropy decoding the bitstream) and 95 – 107 (contexts / probability model (Paragraph 98 renders as obvious variants) based on the transform sets (Peri Paragraphs 87 – 91 and 114 at least) selected in Tables 2 – 5)].
See claim 9 for the motivation to combine Krishna, Peri, and Nalci.
Regarding claim 15, Krishna teaches a variety of block size considerations for using to select transform sets. Peri teaches a variety of subsets based on block size and entropy coding considerations based on the prediction mode used (e.g. intra or inter). Nalci teaches additional considerations based on block size which substitutions taught by Krishna may be used in the assignments of transform subsets used.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify or apply the teachings of Krishna to the tables and transform set selection as taught by Peri and include the entropy coding considerations and to make modifications to Nalci’s transform sets. The combination teaches
wherein the long side is set as a maximum of a width and a height of the transform block, and the short side is set as a minimum of the width and the height of the transform block [Krishna Figures 5 – 6 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 103 – 107 (using the maximum between the block dimensions for the block size to select transform types and the minimum of the length and width of the block is an obvious variants of the “short” feature claimed also horizontal and vertical direction transforms are considered), 116 – 131 (possible sets for vertical and horizontal transforms to use and considerations based on block size and the longer and shorter side of the blocks (such as in at least Paragraphs 125 – 129))].
See claim 9 for the motivation to combine Krishna, Peri, and Nalci.
Regarding claim 16, Krishna teaches a variety of block size considerations for using to select transform sets. Peri teaches a variety of subsets based on block size and entropy coding considerations based on the prediction mode used (e.g. intra or inter). Nalci teaches additional considerations based on block size which substitutions taught by Krishna may be used in the assignments of transform subsets used.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify or apply the teachings of Krishna to the tables and transform set selection as taught by Peri and include the entropy coding considerations and to make modifications to Nalci’s transform sets. The combination teaches
in response to determining that a long side of the another transform block is equal to a second threshold value [The Examiner notes the limitation appears to be an obvious duplication of claim 1 and thus obvious in view of MPEP2144.04 IV B (Duplication of Parts) and additionally Krishna Figures 5 – 6 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 103 – 107 and 116 – 129 (suggested a threshold of N = 32 with short / long side determinations for any block) and 144 – 154 (threshold / block size comparison) where the block size can be in combination with the tables of Peri Tables 2 and 3 (see DCT and identity transform available at 32 x 32 block size in Table 2 suggesting a N = 32 threshold) as well as Paragraphs 78 – 81 and 86 – 91 (horizontal and vertical transforms available and suggested threshold / points for transforms needed and ratios of blocks to suggest long / short size (non-square blocks))], set a long transform type for the another transform block to the discrete cosine transform [The Examiner notes the limitation appears to be an obvious duplication of claim 1 and thus obvious in view of MPEP2144.04 IV B (Duplication of Parts) and additionally Krishna Figures 5 – 6 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 103 – 107 and 116 – 129 (suggested a threshold of N = 32 as equal to a 32 x 32 block or a long side of 32 with short / long side determinations for any block and repeated on a per block basis) and 144 – 154 (threshold / block size comparison) where the block size can be in combination with the tables of Peri Tables 2 and 3 (see DCT and identity transform available at 32 x 32 block size in Table 2 at least and available for selection in which the selection of the DCT transform would be an obvious selection of a finite number of elements (KSR Rationale (E))) as well as Paragraphs 77 – 81 and 86 – 91 (horizontal and vertical transforms available and sizes of transforms (as thresholds)) or Nalci Figures 5 – 8 (subfigures included) and Tables 2 and 3 (see vertical / horizontal mode for transform sets) in which for a 32x32 block (or larger) the DCT and IDTX transforms are available in which the selection of the DCT transform would be an obvious selection of a finite number of elements (KSR Rationale (E)) as well as Paragraphs 8 – 9 (2D transforms have short / long transform applications based on dimension rendering obvious the claim transforms to one of ordinary skill in the art)].
See claim 9 for the motivation to combine Krishna, Peri, and Nalci.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Chao, et al. (US PG PUB 2020/0021852 A1 referred to as “Chao” throughout) in which in Paragraphs 104 – 107 the longer side DCT and identity transform sets for selection are taught. Ray et al. (US PG PUB 2023/0328244 A1 referred to as “Ray” throughout) teaches in Paragraphs 123 – 125 the use of flipped DSTs and asymmetric DSTs for use in transform sets based on block sizes. Nalci, et al. (US PG PUB 2024/0323442 A1 referred to as “Nalci 42” throughout) teaches similar features as Nalci.
Reference which may raise ODP Considerations based on amendments made: Zhao, et al. (US Patent #12,641,290 B2 referred to as “Zhao” throughout).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler W Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)270-5684. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571)-272-7327. 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.
/TYLER W. SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights