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 .
TITLE
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. See MPEP 606.
Information Disclosure Statement
An applicant's duty of disclosure of material information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with "a mountain of largely irrelevant data from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical data. It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners work." Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573, 220 U.S.P.Q. 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). An applicant has a duty to not just disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such way as not to "bury" it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art. See Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1889, 1899 (D. Del. 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea LarkBoats, Inc. et al, 175 U.S.P.Q. 260, 272 (S.D. FI. 1972). It is unreasonable for Examiner to review all of the cited references thoroughly. By initialing the accompanying 1449 forms, Examiner is merely acknowledging the submission of the cited references and indicating that only a cursory review has been made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Peringassery Krishnan et al. (“Peri”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2023/0078100).
In regard to claim 20, the claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein a bitstream generated by acts. Significantly, the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium is NOT implementing any actual method; no instructions/steps are being executed. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data output from and/or generated by a series of acts. In other words, these claims are directed to a mere machine-readable medium storing data content (a bitstream generated by a method).
Applicant therefore seeks to patent the storage of a bitstream in the abstract. In other words, the claim seeks to patent the content of the information (bitstream comprising video information) and not the process itself. Moreover, this stored bitstream does not impose any definitive physical organization on the data as there is no functional relationship between the bitstream and the storage medium. In conclusion, claim 20 and any claims depending therefrom are directed to mere data content (bitstream generated by a series of acts) stored as a bitstream on a computer-readable storage medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, the Examiner found and continues to find that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, this claim is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application.
The examiner recommends amending the claim language to include instructions, that when executed by a processor, execute the steps claimed.
Therefore, claim 20 is anticipated by Peri, as Peri discloses a computer readable medium storing a coded bitstream. Peri discloses, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored therein a bitstream comprising video information generated by acts (See ¶0025, 0173-0174 and 0180-0188).
In regards to claim 1, Peri teaches a method for video processing, comprising:
obtaining, for a conversion between a current block of a video and a bitstream of the video (See FIG. 5-8), information regarding a non-separable primary transform (NSPT) applied on the current block (See ¶0141-0143 and 0150-0151), the information being dependent on at least one of a block size of the current block or an intra mode for the current block (See ¶0141-0143 and 0150-0151); and
performing the conversion based on the information (See FIG. 14 and 15 in view of ¶0141-0143, 0150-0151 and FIG. 5-8).
In regards to claim 2, Peri teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the information comprises at least one of the following: a transform kernel of the NSPT, a transform set of the NSPT, a transform class of the NSPT, a transform type of the NSPT, a transform pair of the NSPT, or a transform rule of the NSPT, or wherein the information is different for different block sizes (See ¶0123, 0141-0143 and 0150-0151; also see ¶0122-023 and Table 2 wherein availability of certain transform kernels may be dependent upon block size and corresponding prediction mode[s]).
In regards to claim 3, Peri teaches the method of claim 2, wherein respective transform kernels of the NSPT for block sizes less than M×M are different, and M is an integer (See ¶0122-0123 and Table 2 wherein transform kernels may be different based on prediction mode and block size).
In regards to claim 4, Peri fails to teach teach the method of claim 3, wherein if M is equal to 8, respective transform kernels of the NSPT for block sizes 4×4, 4×8, 8×4, and 8×8 are different, or if M is equal to 16, respective transform kernels of the NSPT for block sizes 4×4, 4×8, 8×4, 8×8, 4×16, 8×16, 16×4, 16×8, and 16×16 are different, or wherein at least two block sizes greater than M×M share a same transform kernel of the NSPT (See ¶0122-0123 and Table 2 wherein a specific transform kernel may be used for block sizes greater than 16x16).
In regards to claim 5, Peri teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the information is different for different intra modes (See ¶0123, 0141-0143 and 0150-0151; also see ¶0122-023 and Table 2 wherein availability of certain transform kernels may be dependent upon block size and corresponding prediction mode[s]).
In regards to claim 6, Peri teaches the method of claim 5, wherein at least two different transform kernels of the NSPT are used for two different intra mode coded blocks, or wherein at least two different transform sets of the NSPT are used for two different intra mode coded blocks, or wherein at least two different transform classes of the NSPT are used for two different intra mode coded blocks, or wherein at least two different transform types of the NSPT are used for two different intra mode coded blocks, or wherein an intra mode index is associated with a transform kernel of the NSPT, or wherein at least two intra modes share a same transform kernel of the NSPT (See ¶0122-0123 and Table 2).
In regards to claim 16, Peri teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the current block is a transform block (See ¶0118-0122).
In regards to claim 17, Peri teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current block into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the current block from the bitstream (See FIG. 5-8).
In regards to claim 18, Peri teaches an apparatus for video processing comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform a method in accordance with claim 1.
In regards to claim 19, Peri teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform a method in accordance with claim 1 (See ¶0025, 0173-0174 and 0180-0188).
In regards to claim 20, the claim is additionally rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Peri wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium is taught as seen in ¶0025, 0173-0174 and 0180-0188.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peringassery Krishnan et al. (“Peri”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2023/0078100) in view of Ray et al. (“Ray”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2022/0329800).
In regards to claim 7, Peri teaches the method of claim 1, at least one of the following is allowed to be used for the current block: a predetermined transform kernel of the NSPT, a predetermined transform set of the NSPT, a predetermined transform class of the NSPT, or a predetermined transform type of the NSPT (See ¶0122-0123 and Table 2).
Peri, however, fails to teach wherein the current block is coded with a matrix weighted intra prediction (MIP) mode.
In a similar endeavor Ray teaches wherein the current block is coded with a matrix weighted intra prediction (MIP) mode (See ¶0076 and 0206).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Ray into Peri because it allows for an intra-prediction process by which samples of a rectangular block are predicted as described in ¶0076.
In regards to claim 11, Peri fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein a one-dimensional transform kernel is used for a separable Karhunen-Loeve transform (KLT) for the current block, or a two-dimensional transform kernel is used for a non-separable KLT for the current block.
In a similar endeavor Ray teaches wherein a one-dimensional transform kernel is used for a separable Karhunen-Loeve transform (KLT) for the current block, or a two-dimensional transform kernel is used for a non-separable KLT for the current block (See ¶0064, 0134 and 0161 in view of 0086-088 and 0106-0110).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Ray into Peri because it allows for an intra-prediction process by which samples of a rectangular block are predicted as described in ¶0076.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peringassery Krishnan et al. (“Peri”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2023/0078100) in view of Park et al. (“Park”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 20240114131).
In regards to claim 8, Peri teaches the method of claim 1, a first intra mode is determined for the current block and used for determining at least one of the following:
a transform type of a multiple transform selection (MTS), a transform pair of the MTS, a transform class of the MTS, a transform set of the MTS, a transform kernel of the MTS, a transform rule of the MTS, a transform type of a low-frequency non-separable transform (LFNST), a transform pair of the LFNST, a transform class of the LFNST, a transform set of the LFNST, a transform kernel of the LFNST, a transform rule of the LFNST, a transform type of the NSPT, a transform pair of the NSPT, a transform class of the NSPT, a transform set of the NSPT, a transform kernel of the NSPT, or a transform rule of the NSPT (See ¶0123, 0141-0143 and 0150-0151; also see ¶0122-023 and Table 2).
Peri, however, fails to teach wherein the current block is coded with an intra blend mode or an intra-inter blend mode.
In a similar endeavor Park teaches wherein the current block is coded with an intra blend mode or an intra-inter blend mode (See ¶0007, 0010, 0052, 0134, 0147 and 0150).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Park into Peri because it allows for increased (improved) encoding efficiency while reducing complexity at the decoder side as described in ¶0006-0007.
In regards to claim 9, Peri fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the current block is coded with an intra blend mode.
In a similar endeavor Park teaches wherein the current block is coded with an intra blend mode (See ¶0007, 0010, 0052, 0134, 0147 and 0150).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Park into Peri because it allows for increased (improved) encoding efficiency while reducing complexity at the decoder side as described in ¶0006-0007.
In regards to claim 10, Peri fails to teach the method of claim 9, wherein the intra blend mode comprises one of the following: a TIMD blend mode, a DIMD blend mode, or an intra luma fusion mode.
In a similar endeavor Park teaches wherein the intra blend mode comprises one of the following: a TIMD blend mode, a DIMD blend mode, or an intra luma fusion mode (See ¶0007, 0010, 0052, 0134, 0147 and 0150).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Park into Peri because it allows for increased (improved) encoding efficiency while reducing complexity at the decoder side as described in ¶0006-0007.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peringassery Krishnan et al. (“Peri”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2023/0078100) in view of Wang et al. (“Wang”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2024/0098257).
It is to be noted that the information provided by Wang is also supported in the provision application of 63/382,961, filed Nov. 9, 2022.
In regards to claim 12, Peri fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the current block is coded with an SGPM mode.
In a similar endeavor Wang teaches wherein the current block is coded with an SGPM mode (See ¶0120-0126).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Wang into Peri because it allows for use of candidates from template matching rather than direct signaling as described in at least ¶0120, thus showing improved coding efficiency.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peringassery Krishnan et al. (“Peri”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2023/0078100) in view of Xu et al. (“Xu”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0120334).
In regards to claim 13, Peri fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the current block is coded with an intra-inter blend mode, and a transform is applied on the current block based on a same transform rule for an intra-coded block.
In a similar endeavor Xu teaches wherein the current block is coded with an intra-inter blend mode (See ¶0021, 0100-0105), and a transform is applied on the current block based on a same transform rule for an intra-coded block (See ¶0041, 0076 and 0082).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Xu into Peri because it allows for improved performance in visual quality using one of the many techniques, as described in ¶0086.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peringassery Krishnan et al. (“Peri”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2023/0078100) in view of Xu et al. (“Xu”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0120334) and Huang et al. (“Huang”) (U.S. Patent No. 11,611,759).
In regards to claim 14, Peri fails to teach the method of claim 13, wherein the intra-inter blend mode comprises at least one of a CIIP or a GPM intra-inter, or wherein at least one of an intra MTS, an LFNST, or the NSPT is applied on the current block, or wherein at least one of the intra MTS, the LFNST, or the NSPT is applied on a luma component of the current block.
In a similar endeavor Huang teaches wherein the intra-inter blend mode comprises at least one of a CIIP or a GPM intra-inter, or wherein at least one of an intra MTS, an LFNST, or the NSPT is applied on the current block, or wherein at least one of the intra MTS, the LFNST, or the NSPT is applied on a luma component of the current block (See col. 3, li. 21-29, col. 17, li. 37-47 and claims 2 and 29).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Huang into Peri because it allows for a video decoder to parse the signal information in an efficient manner to determine a type of mode to utilize for the current block as described in at least col. 1, li. 52 – col. 2, li. 30.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peringassery Krishnan et al. (“Peri”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2023/0078100) in view of Ahn et al. (“Ahn”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0351511).
In regards to claim 15, Peri fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the current block is coded with a first mode, and at least two different transforms are allowed to be used for the current block.
In a similar endeavor Ahn teaches wherein the current block is coded with a first mode, and at least two different transforms are allowed to be used for the current block (See ¶0104).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Ahn into Peri because it allows for the proper use of an appropriate transform for a prediction mode of the current block as described in at least ¶0104.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDEMIO NAVAS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, ~ 9 AM -6 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 5712727383. 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.
EDEMIO NAVAS JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2483
/EDEMIO NAVAS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights