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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This office action for US Patent application 19/302791 is responsive to communications filed on August 18th, 2025. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending are presented for examination.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C §102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Nalci et al. (US 20230188738 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nalci et al. (US 20230188738 A1) meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A method for processing video data, comprising:
determining to employ one or more transform methods or one or more transform kernels to a video unit when applying an intra block copy (IBC) to the video unit [i.e. a transform type associated with an intra block copy block; paragraph. 0031, 0181]; and
performing a conversion between a visual media data comprising the video unit and a bitstream of the visual media data based on the determining [i.e. output bitstream; Fig. 2].
Regarding claim 3, Nalci et al. (US 20230188738 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, Nalci et al. (US 20230188738 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more transform methods include a primary transform, a secondary transform, a subblock based transform, a separable transform, a non-separable transform, or a combination thereof [i.e. i.e. the transform type include a non-separable transform (LFNST); paragraph. 0181], or wherein the one or more transform methods include multiple transform selection (MTS), non-separable primary transform (NSPT), low-frequency non-separable transform (LFNST), subblock transform (SBT), discrete sine transform (DST), discrete cosine transform (DCT), separable Karhunen-Loeve transform (KLT), non- separable KLT, a zero out transform, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 4, Nalci et al. (US 20230188738 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, Nalci et al. (US 20230188738 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein whether to and/or how to perform the one or more transform methods or the one or more transform kernels for the IBC is the same as that for intra prediction mode or inter prediction mode, or wherein whether to and/or how to perform the one or more transform methods or the one or more transform kernels for the IBC is different from that for intra prediction mode or inter prediction mode [i.e. a transform type associated with an IBC block may be different or the same as a transform type associated with an inter coding block; paragraph. 0201-0202].
Regarding claim 5, Nalci et al. (US 20230188738 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, Nalci et al. (US 20230188738 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more transform kernels are used for the IBC, and wherein the one or more transform kernels include a multiple transform selection (MTS) kernel, a discrete cosine transform (DCT) kernel, a discrete sine transform (DST) kernel, a low-frequency non-separable transform (LFNST) kernel, a non-separable primary transform (NSPT) kernel, kernels which are not used in the MTS kernel for intra/inter prediction, kernels used for intra/inter prediction, or a combination thereof [i.e. different transformation types as DCT, DST, etc.; paragraph. 0073].
Regarding claim 6, Nalci et al. (US 20230188738 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, Nalci et al. (US 20230188738 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein a minimum transform size and/or a maximum transform size for the IBC is set the same as that for other coding tools, and wherein the minimum transform size and/or the maximum transform size for the IBC are set individually, predefined, signaled, derived, based on video content, or a combination thereof [i.e. the transform size is arbitrary or even equal to the maximum allowed transform size; paragraph. 0121].
Regarding claim 16, Nalci et al. (US 20230188738 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, Nalci et al. (US 20230188738 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein subblock transform (SBT) is applied for intra prediction, or wherein low-frequency non-separable transform (LFNST) or non-separable primary transform (NSPT) is applied for inter prediction [i.e. the transform type includes a LFNST; paragraph. 0181].
Regarding claim 17, Nalci et al. (US 20230188738 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, Nalci et al. (US 20230188738 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the visual media data into the bitstream [i.e. Fig. 2].
Regarding claim 18, Nalci et al. (US 20230188738 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, Nalci et al. (US 20230188738 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the visual media data into the bitstream [i.e. Fig. 1-2].
Regarding claims 19-20, all the claim limitations which are set forth and rejected as per discussion for claim 1.
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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter 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 said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C §103 unpatentable over Nalci et al. (US 20230188738 A1) in view of Naser et al. (US 20250039357 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Nalci et al. (US 20230188738 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
In the same field of endeavor, Naser et al. (US 20250039357 A1) discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the IBC includes intra prediction with template matching (intraTMP) or other coding tools as variants of the IBC [i.e. the intra template matching as an IBC candidate; paragraph. 0063].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Nalci et al. (US 20230188738 A1) with Naser et al. (US 20250039357 A1) in order to create a method as the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 7-14 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications form the examiner should be directed to Nam Pham, whose can be contacted by phone at (571)270-7352. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon—Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, CZEKAJ DAVID, can be reached on (571)272-7327.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) AT 866-217-9197 (too free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NAM D PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights