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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed applications under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application No. 16372251, 17073225 and 18523855, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. These prior applications make no mention of deriving a scaling matrix and determining a scaled transform coefficient based on the scaling matrix.
Response to Amendment
No claims have been amended, added or cancelled. Accordingly claims 1-9 remain pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph rejections applicant argues that Paragraph 101 of the current application teaches the claimed deriving a scaling matrix and determining a scaled transform coefficient based on the scaling matrix. Paragraph 101 recites “For example, the quantization part may differently set a quantization weighted matrix corresponding to an encoding mode and a weighted matrix applied according to the inter-prediction/intra-prediction. Also, the quantization part may differently set a weighted matrix applied according to an intra-prediction mode. In this case, when it is assumed that the quantization weighted matrix has a size of M×N, which is the same as the size of the quantization block, the quantization weighted matrix may be a quantization matrix in which some quantization components are differently constructed.” This portion of the current application only recites a weighted matrix or quantization weighted matrix and further that the quantization weighted matrix “may be a quantization matrix in which some quantization components are differently constructed”. A weighing matrix typically adjusts the relative importance of parameters, whereas a scaling matrix typically only implies adjusting a magnitude of parameters. These are different inventive concepts and have different associated scopes. Thus, the scaling matrix recited in the claim limitations was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Further it was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The rejections under 112 are maintained, applicant is required to amend the claim language to comply with written description requirement, and provide proper enablement.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., specific interpretation of “encoding information”; “deriving the quantization parameter using the prediction mode or difference information”, “deriving the scaling matrix using the difference information”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For the purposes of examination, “encoding information” is reasonably interpreted to be any information used during encoding.
Applicant argues that Andersson et al. fails to teach “deriving a quantization parameter for the current block based on the encoding information” and “deriving a scaling matrix for the current block based on the encoding information” (Paragraphs 229-239). However, examiner respectfully disagrees. In Paragraph 1, Andersson et al. clearly and unambiguously teaches “present embodiments generally relate to methods and devices in video encoding and decoding, and in particular to determination of quantization parameter (QP) values in connection with video encoding and decoding.” This clearly and unambiguously teaches deriving quantization parameters based on the encoding information. In Paragraph 229, Andersson et al. teaches “A scaling matrix, with individual scaling factors for respective transform coefficient, can be used to make a different quantization effect for respective transform coefficient by scaling the transform coefficients individually with respective scaling factor as part of the quantization. This enables for example that the quantization effect is stronger for higher frequency transform coefficients than for lower frequency transform coefficients. In HEVC default scaling matrices are defined for each transform size and can be invoked by flags in the Sequence Parameter Set (SPS) and/or the Picture Parameter Set (PPS). Scaling matrices also exist in H.264. In HEVC it is also possibly to define own scaling matrices in SPS or PPS specifically for respective color component, transform size and prediction type (intra or inter mode). In equation 5, below from HEVC specification [1] it is shown how the scaling factors (m[x][y]) can be used to scales the quantized transform coefficients (TransCoeffLevel). When the scaling factor is larger than 16 a coefficient will be quantized more than when the scaling factor is less than 16. A scaling factor equal to 16 corresponds to quantization without scaling.” This clearly and unambiguously teaches deriving a scaling matrix for the current block based on the encoding information. It very clearly teaches in paragraph 229 above that it may “define own scaling matrices in SPS or PPS specifically for respective color component, transform size and prediction type (intra or inter mode)”. In Paragraph 239, it further teaches “According to further aspects, at least one scaling matrix for a slice or picture is set according to the hierarchical level, where the hierarchical level is defined by the QP used for luma for that picture compared to the QP used for an independently decodable picture (IRAP). A larger difference between the luma QP of the current picture compared to the luma QP for the IRAP correspond to a higher hierarchical level. One example is to increase the fidelity, e.g. in HEVC scaling factor less than 16, of the lower frequency coefficients compared to the higher frequency coefficients, e.g. in HEVC scaling factor equal to 16, with increasing hierarchical level. Another example is to decrease the fidelity of higher frequency coefficients, e.g. in HEVC scaling factor larger than 16, compared to low frequency coefficients, e.g. in HEVC scaling factor equal to 16. This can then when used in combination with increased QP, increased hierarchical level, make the effect of QP act differently for low frequency coefficients than high frequency coefficients.” Thus, the above teachings are clearly and unambiguously considered to teach the claim limitations as filed and are met as discussed above.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In light of the above remarks, the claims are rejected as before.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification of the current application makes no mention of deriving a scaling matrix and determining a scaled transform coefficient based on the scaling matrix.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The specification of the current application makes no mention of deriving a scaling matrix and determining a scaled transform coefficient based on the scaling matrix.
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Andersson et al. (US 20180278934 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Andersson et al. teaches a method for processing an image (abstract), the method comprising:
obtaining encoding information for a current block from a bitstream (Paragraph 1);
deriving a quantization parameter for the current block based on the encoding information (Paragraph 1);
deriving a scaling matrix for the current block based on the encoding information (Paragraphs 229-239); and
determining a scaled transform coefficient for the current block based on the quantization parameter and the scaling matrix, wherein the encoding information comprises at least one of a prediction mode for the current block or difference information used for deriving the quantization parameter (Paragraphs 229-239).
Regarding Claim 2, Andersson et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the scaling matrix is derived based on whether the prediction mode is an intra prediction mode (Paragraph 229).
Regarding Claim 3, Andersson et al. teaches the method of claim 2, wherein a scaling matrix derived when the prediction mode is the intra prediction mode is different from a scaling matrix derived when the prediction mode is an inter prediction mode (Paragraphs 229).
Regarding Claim 4, Andersson et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the quantization parameter for the current block is derived based on a sum of a difference value derived from the difference information and a quantization parameter for a slice (Paragraphs 192-197).
Regarding Claim 5, Andersson et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the quantization parameter for the current block is derived based on a sum of a difference value derived from the difference information and a corrected quantization parameter for a slice (Paragraph 21-22, describes a QP corrected by a QP offset; Paragraphs 229-239).
Regarding Claim 6, Andersson et al. teaches the method of claim 5, the corrected quantization parameter of the slice is derived based on a type of the slice (Paragraphs 82-89).
Regarding Claim 7, Andersson et al. teaches the method of claim 5, the corrected quantization parameter of the slice is derived by adding an offset to a quantization parameter of the slice (Paragraph 21-22, describes a QP corrected by a QP offset; Paragraphs 229-239).
Claim 8 has limitations that are similar to those rejected in claim 1 above and are rejected for the same reasons as used above. Andersson et al. further teaches obtaining a transform coefficient for a current block (Paragraphs 23-29); and obtaining a scaled transform coefficient for the current block by applying a scaling process to the transform coefficient (Paragraphs 229-239)
Claim 9 has limitations that are similar to those rejected in claims 1 and 8 above and are rejected for the same reasons. Andersson et al. further teaches a method for transmitting a bitstream (Paragraph 167).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights