DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is a response to an application filed on 09/05/2025, in which claims 21-35 are pending and ready for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted was filed before the mailing date of the Office Action on the merits. The submission is 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of US 12,368,850 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as the reason and table provided below.
Instant – 19/265,248
US 12,368,850 B2
Claim 21 - A decoder for decoding an encoded bitstream representative of a block of a frame of video, the decoder comprising:
Claim 1 - A decoder for decoding an encoded bitstream representative of a block of a frame of video, the decoder comprising:
an inverse transform module comprising executable instructions that cause one or more processors to:
determine a set of candidate inverse secondary transform matrices on the basis of a characteristic of the block to be decoded, wherein determining the set of candidate inverse secondary transform matrices comprises determining a candidate number, the candidate number determining how many candidate inverse secondary transform matrices are to be determined in the set of candidate inverse secondary transform matrices, the candidate number being determined on the basis of the characteristic of the block, wherein the characteristic comprises non-zero coefficients contained in the block,
an inverse transform module comprising executable instructions that cause one or more processors to:
determine a total number of non-zero coefficients contained in the block to be decoded, determine a set of candidate inverse secondary transform matrices on the basis of the determined total number of non-zero coefficients contained in the block, wherein the set of candidate inverse secondary transform matrices comprises a plurality of inverse secondary transform matrices, and wherein determining the set of candidate inverse secondary transform matrices comprises determining a candidate number on the basis of the determined total number of non-zero coefficients contained in the block, the candidate number determining how many candidate inverse secondary transform matrices are to be determined in the set of candidate inverse secondary transform matrices,
select an inverse secondary transform matrix from the set of candidate inverse secondary transform matrices based on a signal received on the encoded bitstream, and
select an inverse secondary transform matrix from the set of candidate inverse secondary transform matrices based on a signal received on the encoded bitstream, and
apply an inverse matrix transformation to transformed residual information, to extract untransformed residual information,
apply an inverse matrix transformation to transformed residual information, to extract untransformed residual information,
the inverse matrix transformation being governed by the inverse secondary transform matrix and an inverse primary transform matrix; and an intra-prediction module comprising executable instructions that cause the one or more processors to compute a prediction of the block in accordance with an intra-prediction mode and reconstructing the block by combining the inverse transformed residual data with the prediction.
the inverse matrix transformation being governed by the inverse secondary transform matrix and an inverse primary transform matrix; and an intra-prediction module comprising executable instructions that cause the one or more processors to compute a prediction of the block in accordance with an intra-prediction mode and reconstructing the block by combining the inverse transformed residual data with the prediction.
Claim 22 - the inverse transform module further causes the one or more processors to determine the set of candidate inverse secondary transform matrices on the basis of whether the block comprises chrominance data or luminance data.
Claim 2 - the inverse transform module further causes the one or more processors to determine the set of candidate inverse secondary transform matrices on the basis of whether the block comprises chrominance data or luminance data.
Claim 23 - the inverse transform module further causes the one or more processors to determine the set of candidate inverse secondary transform matrices on the basis of a dimensional characteristic of the block.
Claim 3 - the inverse transform module further causes the one or more processors to determine the set of candidate inverse secondary transform matrices on the basis of a dimensional characteristic of the block.
Claim 24 - the dimensional characteristic comprises at least one of height or width of the block.
Claim 4 - the dimensional characteristic comprises at least one of height or width of the block.
Claim 25 - the inverse transform module further causes the one or more processors to select the inverse secondary transform matrix on the basis of the selection of a primary transform matrix.
Claim 5 - the inverse transform module further causes the one or more processors to select the inverse secondary transform matrix on the basis of the selection of a primary transform matrix.
Claim 26 - he inverse transform module further causes the one or more processors to apply no secondary transform dependent on a primary transform matrix being a predetermined character.
Claim 6 - the inverse transform module further causes the one or more processors to apply no secondary transform dependent on a primary transform matrix being a predetermined character.
Claim 27 - the predetermined character of the primary transform matrix comprises that it be derived as an integer approximation of a discrete cosine transform used in the horizontal and vertical directions.
Claim 7 - the predetermined character of the primary transform matrix comprises that it be derived as an integer approximation of a discrete cosine transform used in the horizontal and vertical directions.
Claim 28 - the discrete cosine transform is DCT2.
Claim 8 - the discrete cosine transform is DCT2.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because claims 21-28 of the instant application differs from claims 1-8 of US 12,368,850 B2 only in wordings, wherein each pair of corresponding claims have the same claim scope. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention to recognize that such distinction in wordings does not change the recited claim scope.
Claims 29-35 are directed to a method of decoding encoded transformed residual information for a block of a frame of video, the method comprising a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claims 21-28, and are non-patentable over the prior art for the same reason as previously indicated.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “inverse transform module … cause(s)” in claim 21-26, “intra-prediction module … cause” in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof: “transform module” corresponds to Para. [0039], Fig. 4-6, “intra-prediction module” corresponds to Para. [0039, 42-43].
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 21-24 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (WO 2017058615 A1) in view of Zhao’2 (WO 2017058614 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Zhao discloses a decoder for decoding an encoded bitstream representative of a block of a frame of video, the decoder comprising (Zhao; Fig. 6, 9, Para. [0210]. A decoding system/method is used to perform a decoding process, see Para. [0130].):
an inverse transform module comprising executable instructions that cause one or more processors to: determine a set of candidate inverse secondary transform matrices, select an inverse secondary transform matrix from the set of candidate inverse secondary transform matrices based on a signal received on the encoded bitstream (Zhao; Fig. 6, Para. [0102, 123]. An inverse transform includes an inverse primary transform matrix and an inverse secondary transform matrix, wherein the inverse secondary transform matrix is determined from a set of transform matrix in accordance with a current block characteristic of quantized coefficient, including a number of non-zero coefficients, also see Para. [0124].),
apply an inverse matrix transformation to the transformed residual information, to extract untransformed residual information (Zhao; Fig. 6. Para. [0130]. An inverse matrix transformation is applied to a transformed residual block to obtain an untransformed residual block.), the inverse matrix transformation being governed by an inverse secondary transform matrix and an inverse primary transform matrix; and
an intra-prediction module comprising executable instructions that cause the one or more processors to compute a prediction of the block in accordance with an intra-prediction mode and reconstructing the block by combining the inverse transformed residual data with the prediction (Zhao; Para. [0120]. A predictive block (inter or intra) is determined to be summed with an inverse transformed residual block for performing reconstruction.).
But Zhao does not specifically disclose determine a set of candidate inverse secondary transform matrices on the basis of a characteristic of the block to be decoded, wherein determining the set of candidate inverse secondary transform matrices comprises determining a candidate number, the candidate number determining how many candidate inverse secondary transform matrices are to be determined in the set of candidate inverse secondary transform matrices, the candidate number being determined on the basis of the characteristic of the block, wherein the characteristic comprises non-zero coefficients contained in the block.
However, Zhao’2 teaches determine a set of candidate inverse secondary transform matrices on the basis of a characteristic of the block to be decoded, wherein determining the set of candidate inverse secondary transform matrices comprises determining a candidate number, the candidate number determining how many candidate inverse secondary transform matrices are to be determined in the set of candidate inverse secondary transform matrices, the candidate number being determined on the basis of the characteristic of the block, wherein the characteristic comprises non-zero coefficients contained in the block (Zhao’2; Para. [0163]. An available range of index/a candidate number is determined for indicating how many candidate inverse secondary transform matrices available in the set of transform matrices in accordance with a characteristics of how many non-zero coefficients contained in a block, wherein for a candidate number being 0 for the second transform not being applied, and a candidate number being greater than 0 for the second transform being applied according to whether a total number of non-zero coefficients being greater than a threshold or not..).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding system of Zhao to adapt a transform matrix selection approach, by incorporating Zhao’2’s teaching wherein a number of non-zero coefficients are used to determine a set of candidate transforms, for the motivation to perform secondary transform on video blocks (Zhao’2; Abstract.).
Regarding claim 22, modified Zhao further teaches the inverse transform module further causes the one or more processors to determine the set of candidate inverse secondary transform matrices on the basis of whether the block comprises chrominance data or luminance data (Zhao; Para. [0157]. A current block characteristics includes chrominance data or luminance data.).
Regarding claim 23, modified Zhao further teaches the inverse transform module further causes the one or more processors to determine the set of candidate inverse secondary transform matrices on the basis of a dimensional characteristic of the block (Zhao; Para. [0124]. A current block characteristic includes a block characteristics of dimension/size.).
Regarding claim 24, modified Zhao further teaches wherein the dimensional characteristic comprises at least one of height or width of the block (Zhao; Para. [0124]. A current block characteristic includes a block characteristics of dimension/size of height and/or width).
Claims 29-31 are directed to a method of decoding encoded transformed residual information for a block of a frame of video, the method comprising a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claims 21-24, and are non-patentable over the prior art for the same reason as previously indicated.
Claims 25-28 and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (WO 2017058615 A1) in view of Zhao’2 (WO 2017058614 A1), as applied to claim 42 above, and further in view of Abe (“CE6: AMT and NSST complexity reduction (CE6-3.3)”, 07/10/2018).
Regarding claim 25, modified Zhao further teaches the inverse transform module further causes the one or more processors to select the inverse secondary transform matrix on the basis (Zhao; See remarks regarding claim 42 above.).
But it does not specifically disclose the inverse transform module further causes the one or more processors to select the inverse secondary transform matrix on the basis of the selection of a primary transform matrix.
However, Abe teaches the inverse transform module further causes the one or more processors to select the inverse secondary transform matrix on the basis of the selection of a primary transform matrix (Abe; Heading “2 Proposed Method”. A secondary transform matrix is determined in accordance with the determining/selecting of a primary transform matrix.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the video coding system of modified Zhao to adapt a transform matrix selection approach, by incorporating Abe’s teaching wherein DCT2 is used to determine whether AMT and/or NSST is used, for the motivation to reduce coding complexity by skipping some combinations of AMT and NSST (Abe; Abstract.).
Regarding claim 26, modified Zhao further teaches the inverse transform module further causes the one or more processors to select the secondary transform matrix on the basis (Zhao; See remarks regarding claim 42 above.).
But it does not specifically disclose the inverse transform module further causes the one or more processors to apply no secondary transform dependent on a primary transform matrix being a predetermined character.
However, Abe teaches the inverse transform module further causes the one or more processors to apply no secondary transform dependent on a primary transform matrix being a predetermined character (Abe; Heading “2 Proposed Method”. A secondary transform matrix is determined in accordance with the determining/selecting of a primary transform matrix being a predetermined character, e.g. DCT2.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the video coding system of modified Zhao to adapt a transform matrix selection approach, by incorporating Abe’s teaching wherein DCT2 is used to determine whether AMT and/or NSST is used, for the motivation to reduce coding complexity by skipping some combinations of AMT and NSST (Abe; Abstract.).
Regarding claim 27, Zhao discloses the inverse transform module further causes the one or more processors to select the secondary transform matrix on the basis (Zhao; See remarks regarding claim 42 above.).
But it does not specifically disclose wherein the predetermined character of the primary transform matrix comprises that it be derived as an integer approximation of a discrete cosine transform used in the horizontal and vertical directions.
However, Abe teaches wherein the predetermined character of the primary transform matrix comprises that it be derived as an integer approximation of a discrete cosine transform used in the horizontal and vertical directions (Abe; Heading “2 Proposed Method”. A secondary transform matrix is determined in accordance with the determining/selecting of a primary transform matrix being a predetermined character, e.g. DCT2 as an integer approximation of discrete cosine transform for vertical and horizontal directions.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding system of Zhao to adapt a transform matrix selection approach, by incorporating Abe’s teaching wherein DCT2 is used to determine whether AMT and/or NSST is used, for the motivation to reduce coding complexity by skipping some combinations of AMT and NSST (Abe; Abstract.).
Regarding claim 28, Abe of modified Zhao further teaches wherein the discrete cosine transform is DCT2 (Abe; Heading “2 Proposed Method”. A secondary transform matrix is determined in accordance with the determining/selecting of a primary transform matrix being a predetermined character, e.g. DCT2 as an integer approximation of discrete cosine transform for vertical and horizontal directions.).
Claims 32-35 are directed to a method of decoding encoded transformed residual information for a block of a frame of video, the method comprising a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claims 25-28, and are non-patentable over the prior art for the same reason previously indicated.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang (US Pub. 20230037443 A1) teaches a video coding system that uses enhanced secondary transform.
Fan (US Pat. 11575901 B2) teaches a video coding system that uses context modeling for side information for reduced secondary transform.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT KIR whose telephone number is (571)272-6245. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Jay Patel can be reached on (571) 272-2988. 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.
/ALBERT KIR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights