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 .
Claims 1-3 are pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/08/2026; 08/07/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. US 11310531 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application uses the same modified transform coefficients based on an inverse secondary transform.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
The present invention is directed to a method for video encoding/decoding to derive a modified transform coefficients based on an inverse reduced secondary transform (RST) using a present transform kernel matrix and deriving residual samples for a target block based on an inverse primary transform for the modified transform confidents.
The combination of the prior art does not teach or suggest a specific implementation with
the following distinct properties that include:
wherein the deriving the modified transform coefficients derive the modified transform coefficients of the top-left 4x4 region, the top-right 4x4 region and the bottom-left 4x4 region of the 8x8 region by applying the transform kernel matrix to the transform coefficients of the top-left 4x4 region of the 8x8 region of the target block,
wherein the transform kernel matrix is a 48 X 16 matrix, and
wherein a matrix operation between the transform kernel matrix and the transform coefficients of the top-left 4x4 region is (48 X 16 matrix) * (16 X 1 transform coefficient vector).
Closest prior art listed below either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render the above limitations obvious.
Chong (US 20150264403 A1) teaches the encoding/ decoding device determine a reduced transform coefficient matrix, wherein the reduced transform coefficient matrix comprises an inner region of zero or non-zero values of the same inner region of a full transform coefficient matrix and an outer region of zero values, wherein the reduced transform coefficient matrix and the full transform coefficient matrix have the same size. But is silent on wherein the deriving the modified transform coefficients derive the modified transform coefficients of the top- left 4x4 region, the top-right 4x4 region and the bottom-left 4x4 region of the 8x8 region by applying the transform kernel matrix to the transform coefficients of the top-left 4x4 region of the 8x8 region of the target block, wherein the transform kernel matrix is a 48 X 16 matrix, and wherein a matrix operation between the transform kernel matrix and the transform.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HESHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)270-0425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 Atala can be reached at 57127227384. 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.
/HESHAM K ABOUZAHRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights