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 .
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.
Patent US 12,389,003 B2
Claims 1, 6-7, 9, 14-15 & 17-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 & 9-10 of US 12,389,003 B2.
Instant 19/272,686
Patent US 12,389,003 B2
1. A transform method, applied to an encoder, the method comprising:
1. A transform method, applied to an encoder, the method comprising:
determining a prediction mode parameter of a current block;
determining a prediction mode parameter of a current block;
determining a Matrix-based Intra Prediction (MIP) parameter when the prediction mode parameter indicates that MIP is used for the current block to determine an intra prediction value;
determining a Matrix-based Intra Prediction (MIP) parameter when the prediction mode parameter indicates that MIP is used for the current block to determine an intra prediction value;
determining the intra prediction value of the current block according to the MIP parameter, and calculating a residual value between the current block and the intra prediction value;
determining the intra prediction value of the current block according to the MIP parameter, and calculating a residual value between the current block and the intra prediction value;
performing a first transform on the residual value to obtain a first coefficient matrix;
performing a first transform on the residual value to obtain a first coefficient matrix;
determining a scanning order of Low-Frequency Non-Separable Transform (LFNST) coefficients used for the current block according to the MIP parameter when an LFNST is used for the current block;
determining a scanning order of LFNST coefficients used for the current block according to the MIP parameter when an LFNST is used for the current block;
constructing an input coefficient matrix of the LFNST based on the first coefficient matrix according to the scanning order of LFNST coefficients; and
constructing an input coefficient matrix of the LFNST based on the obtained first coefficient matrix according to the scanning order of LFNST coefficients,
performing an LFNST processing on the input coefficient matrix to obtain a transform coefficient matrix of the current block;
performing an LFNST processing on the constructed input coefficient matrix to obtain a transform coefficient matrix of the current block;
wherein, the first transform is a transform different from the LFNST, and scanning orders of LFNST coefficients comprise a horizontal scanning order and a vertical scanning order.
wherein the first transform is a transform different from Low-Frequency Non-Separable Transform (LFNST); wherein the scanning order of LFNST coefficients comprises a horizontal scanning order or a vertical scanning order;
Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application falls within the scope of claim 1 of US 12,389,003 B2.
Regarding claims (6-7, 9, 14-15 & 17-19), claims (6-7, 9, 14-15 & 17-19) in the instant application correspond to claims (2-7 & 9-10), respectively, in US 12,389,003 B2.
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 of this title, 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 1, 9 & 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biatek et al. (US 2021/0092405 A1 with provisional benefit to 62/905,865) (hereinafter Biatek) in view of Koo et al. (US 2022/0256150 A1 with provisional benefit to 62/929,762) (hereinafter Koo), and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2020/0396455 A1 with provisional benefit to 62/860,149) (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 1, Biatek discloses A transform method, applied to an encoder [Paragraph [0008] supported in Paragraph [0018] of provisional, method for encoding, as transform method applied to encoder], the method comprising:
determining a prediction mode parameter of a current block [Paragraph [0085] supported in Paragraph [0121] of provisional, flag intra_mip_flag specifying whether MIP mode is used, as prediction mode parameter for each CU as current block];
determining a Matrix-based Intra Prediction (MIP) parameter when the prediction mode parameter indicates that MIP is used for the current block to determine an intra prediction value [Paragraph [0085]-[0183] supported in Paragraph [0121]-[0148] of provisional, When intra_mip_flag is true, value of intra_mip_transposed as MIP parameter is determined, to determine MIP mode for luma samples as intra prediction values is transposed or not];
determining the intra prediction value of the current block according to the MIP parameter [Paragraph [0085]-[0186] supported in Paragraph [0121]-[0148] of provisional, intra_mip_transposed as MIP parameter is determined to derive luma intra prediction mode], and calculating a residual value between the current block and the intra prediction value [Paragraph [0130] supported in Paragraph [0084] of provisional, residual generation unit 204 receives the video data for the current block and the corresponding prediction block. Residual generation unit 204 then generates a residual block for the current block];
performing a first transform on the residual value to obtain a first coefficient matrix [Paragraph [0131] supported in Paragraph [0085] of provisional, Transform processing unit 206 applies one or more transforms as first transform to the residual block to generate a block of transform coefficients as first coefficient matrix].
However, Biatek does not explicitly disclose determining a scanning order of Low-Frequency Non-Separable Transform (LFNST) coefficients used for the current block according to the MIP parameter when an LFNST is used for the current block;
constructing an input coefficient matrix of the LFNST based on the first coefficient matrix according to the scanning order of LFNST coefficients; and performing an LFNST processing on the input coefficient matrix to obtain a transform coefficient matrix of the current block; wherein, the first transform is a transform different from the LFNST.
Koo teaches determining a scanning order of Low-Frequency Non-Separable Transform (LFNST) coefficients used for the current block [Paragraph [0170]-[0172] supported in Section 3.7 Embodiment 7 of provisional, in LFNST, output values may be arranged in a 2D block according to a predetermined scan order] according to the MIP parameter when an LFNST is used for the current block [Paragraph [0239]-[0246] supported in Section 3.8.9 of provisional, Ifnst_idx may be signaled only when the condition (!intra_mip_flag[x0][y0] | | Min( lfnstWidth, lfnstHeight ) >= 16 ) is satisfied. Herein, intra_mip_flag[x0][y0] is a flag indicating whether the MIP (matrix-based intra-prediction) is applied to a Luma block];
constructing an input coefficient matrix of the LFNST based on the first coefficient matrix according to the scanning order of LFNST coefficients [Paragraph [0170]-[0172] supported in Section 3.7 Embodiment 7 of provisional, in LFNST, output values may be arranged in a 2D block according to a predetermined scan order, with x being input [48x1] vector as input coefficient matrix arranged from 2D output of primary transform according to scan order]; and
performing an LFNST processing on the input coefficient matrix to obtain a transform coefficient matrix of the current block [Paragraph [0170]-[0172] supported in Section 3.7 Embodiment 7 of provisional, forward secondary transform (after forward primary transform) is performed as LFNST, upon input x convoluted with LFNST matrix GT to obtain output y as transform coefficient matrix of current block]; wherein, the first transform is a transform different from the LFNST [Paragraph [0098]-[0100] supported in Section 0.6 & 2.2 of provisional, forward primary transform is a multiple transform set (MTS), of which DST, DCT transforms are different from LFNST].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Biatek to integrate and implement the teachings of Koo as above, for increasing coding efficiency in coding an LFNST index (Koo, Paragraph [0006]-[0007]).
However, Biatek and Koo do not explicitly disclose scanning orders of LFNST coefficients comprise a horizontal scanning order and a vertical scanning order.
Liu teaches scanning orders of LFNST coefficients comprise a horizontal scanning order and a vertical scanning order [Paragraph [0019] & [0153] supported in Section 3.3.1-3.3.2 of provisional, The non-separable transform is calculated re-organizes 16x1 vector as a 4×4 block using a scanning order for that block (horizontal, vertical or diagonal)].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Biatek to integrate and implement the teachings of Liu as above, for keeping low computation complexity when transforming low frequency coefficients after a primary transform (Liu, Paragraph [0151]).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is drawn to a transform method, applied to a decoder, having limitations similar to the transform method of using the same as claimed in claim 1 treated in the above rejection. Therefore, method claim 9 corresponds to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Furthermore, Biatek discloses of a transform method, applied to a decoder [Paragraph [0027] supported in Paragraph [0019] in provisional, providing a method for decoding an image].
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is drawn to a decoder having limitations similar to the transform methods, applied to the decoder of using the same as claimed in claim 9 treated in the above rejections. Therefore, device claim 18 corresponds to method claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Furthermore, Biatek discloses the decoder comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program runnable on the processor; and the processor is configured to perform the method [Paragraph [0046] and supported in [0033] of provisional, Video encoder 200 and video decoder 300 each may be implemented as any of a variety of suitable encoder and/or decoder circuitry, such as one or more microprocessors, digital signal processors (DSPs), application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), discrete logic, software, hardware, firmware or any combinations thereof. When the techniques are implemented partially in software, a device may store instructions for the software in a suitable, non-transitory computer-readable medium and execute the instructions in hardware using one or more processors to perform the techniques of this disclosure].
Regarding claim 19, non-transitory computer storage medium claim 19 corresponds to the same method as claimed in claim 1, and therefore is also rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as listed above.
Furthermore, Biatek discloses of a non-transitory computer storage medium having stored therein a computer program wherein, the method according to claim 1 is implemented when the computer program is executed by a processor [Paragraph [0046] and supported in [0033] of provisional, techniques are implemented partially in software, a device may store instructions for the software in a suitable, non-transitory computer-readable medium and execute the instructions in hardware using one or more processors to perform the techniques of this disclosure].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 8, 10-13 & 16 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.
Claims 2-5, 8, 10-13 & 16 contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The various claimed limitations mentioned in the claims are not taught or suggested by the prior art taken either singly or in combination, with emphasize that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements make them allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 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, 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.
/DANIEL CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights