DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the application filing on 21 OCTOBER 2025.
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 .
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 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.
The factual inquiries 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(s) 1-3, 6-11, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0116605 A1 (hereinafter “Koo”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0247209 A1 (hereinafter “Zhao”), and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0159259 A1 (hereinafter “Fan”).
Regarding claim 1, Koo discloses a method of video decoding ([0002], “a method and apparatus for encoding/decoding residual data”) performed at a computing system (FIG. 1, receiving device 20) having memory and one or more processors ([0502], “code may be stored in the memory and executed by the processor”), the method comprising:
receiving a video bitstream comprising a plurality of blocks, including a current block ([0083], “The decoding apparatus 200 can receive a signal output from the encoding apparatus 100 of FIG. 2 in the form of a bitstream, and the received signal can be decoded through the entropy decoding unit 210. For example, the entropy decoding unit 210 can parse the bitstream to derive information (e.g., video/image information) necessary for image reconstruction (or picture reconstruction)”); and
when a one-dimensional (1D) primary transform is used for the current block ([0127], “The inverse primary transform unit 232 performs inverse primary transform on the inversely secondarily transformed signal (or block) and obtains a residual signal.” Table 4 describes MTS primary transform options that are separable, meaning the horizontal and vertical DCT/DST are one-dimensional transforms):
determining ([0288], “the encoding apparatus 100 may perform the primary transform using the above-mentioned MTS. Further, the encoding apparatus 100 may transmit an MTS index indicating a specific MTS from among MTS candidates to the decoding apparatus 200.” [0435], “there is proposed reduced 32-point MTS (RMTS32) in which a transform for high frequency coefficients is omitted. In this case, the 32-point MTS indicates a method of applying a transform to a row or a column having a length of 32”);
selecting a secondary transform ([0127], “The inverse primary transform unit 232 performs inverse primary transform on the inversely secondarily transformed signal (or block) and obtains a residual signal”)
reconstructing the current block using the secondary transform ([0127], “The inverse primary transform unit 232 performs inverse primary transform on the inversely secondarily transformed signal (or block) and obtains a residual signal.” [0089], “The adder 235 can generate a reconstructed signal (reconstructed picture, reconstructed block or reconstructed sample array)”).
Koo fails to expressly disclose determining a support region based on the 1D primary transform; and
selecting a secondary transform based on the 1D primary transform and the support region.
However, Zhao teaches determining a support region based on the 1D primary transform (FIG. 14 illustrates a vertical 1D primary transform and the support region includes the low-frequency transforms with the high-frequencies being all zero at the lower rows of the block. [0121], “the low-frequency components of the transform coefficients obtained after the 1-D transform are concentrated in the upper rows of the block.” FIG. 15 illustrates a horizontal 1D primary transform and the support region includes the low-frequency transform with the high-frequencies being all zero in the right columns of the block. [0122], “the low-frequency components of the transform coefficients obtained after the 1-D transform are concentrated in the left columns of the block”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted frequency values within a block dependent on the transform direction, as taught by Zhao ([0121-0122]), in Koo’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Koo’s invention, by incorporating Zhao’s invention, to improve compression rate, achieve higher coding efficiency, and lower signaling overhead (Zhao: [0132]).
Koo and Zhao fail to expressly disclose selecting a secondary transform based on the 1D primary transform and the support region.
However, Fan teaches selecting a secondary transform based on the 1D primary transform and the support region ([0009], “determining, based on a type of a primary transform, a secondary transform tool associated with a current video block of a video.” Section 2.4.2 beginning at [0100] describes the secondary transform requirements, including block size limitations, for which the block with the support region must to conform to).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected a secondary transform in consideration of the primary transform and the current block, as taught by Fan ([0009]), in Koo and Zhao’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Koo and Zhao’s invention, by incorporating Fan’s invention, to improve compression performance (Fan: [0044]).
Regarding claim 2, Koo, Zhao, and Fan disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Koo discloses wherein the secondary transform is applied when the 1D primary transform is applied to one of: one or more rows of the current block, or one or more columns of the current block ([0111], “software includes two principal functions (core transform and secondary transform). Core transform is composed of discrete cosine transform (DCT) and discrete sine transform (DST) transform families applied to all rows and columns of a residual block. Thereafter, secondary transform may be additionally applied to a top left corner of the output of core transform”).
Regarding claim 3, Koo, Zhao, and Fan disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Zhao discloses wherein the support region is based on whether the 1D primary transform is horizontal or vertical (FIG. 14 depicts an embodiment with a vertical 1D primary transform with the support region being indicated by the EOR. FIG. 15 depicts an embodiment with a horizontal 1D primary transform with the support region being indicated by the EOC). The same motivation of claim 1 applies equally to claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, Koo, Zhao, and Fan disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Zhao discloses further comprising selecting the 1D primary transform from a set of 1D primary transforms (FIGS. 14 and 15 depict the two 1D primary transforms selected from, including selecting between vertical transform and horizontal transform). The same motivation of claim 1 applies to claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Koo, Zhao, and Fan disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Fan discloses wherein the secondary transform is selected from a set of transforms based on a transform type of the 1D primary transform ([0009], “determining, based on a type of a primary transform, a secondary transform tool associated with a current video block of a video”). The same motivation of claim 1 applies to claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Koo, Zhao, and Fan disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Koo discloses wherein a transform kernel size of the 1D primary transform is based on a size of the current block ([0395], “The decoder determines a region in which primary transform (i.e., primary inverse transform) is applied to the current block based on the transform kernel indicated by the transform index and the size (i.e., the width and/or the height) of the current block (S2803).” Note, the transform kernel includes the transform type (e.g., DCT-2) and the sample point (e.g., 4-point DCT-2). Zhao describes in [0116-0118] and Tables 1 and 2 examples of supported transform types with their sample points ranging from 4-point to 64-point to support varying shape sizes. A 4-point supports 4 samples in a horizontal or vertical direction and a 64-point supports 64 samples in a horizontal or vertical direction, dependent on the block size. The motivation of 1 claim applies to claim 8 for the teachings of Zhao).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations are the same as those in claim 1. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 1 applies to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations are the same as those in claim 2. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 2 applies to claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations are the same as those in claim 3. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 3 applies to claim 11.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations are the same as those in claim 6. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 6 applies to claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations are the same as those in claim 7. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 7 applies to claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations are the same as those in claim 2. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 2 applies to claim 16. Additionally, Koo discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a video bitstream that is generated by a video encoding method ([0097], “The bitstream may be generated by an encoding method or a bitstream generation method to which the present disclosure is applied and the streaming server 420 can temporarily store the bitstream”).
Regarding claim 17, the limitations are the same as those in claim 2. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 2 applies to claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations are the same as those in claim 3. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 3 applies to claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations are the same as those in claim 7. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 7 applies to claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations are the same as those in claim 8. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 8 applies to claim 20.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0116605 A1 (hereinafter “Koo”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0247209 A1 (hereinafter “Zhao”), further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0159259 A1 (hereinafter “Fan”), and even further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2025/0392754 A1 (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 4, Koo, Zhao, and Fan disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Koo, Zhao, and Fan fail to expressly disclose when the 1D primary transform is applied row-wise, vectorizing coefficients in each row using row-based scan order.
However, Lee teaches when the 1D primary transform is applied row-wise, vectorizing coefficients in each row using row-based scan order ([0135], “Coefficients in a dequantized block may be rearranged in a one-dimensional vector according to a block scanning method. From the left side of FIG. 5, diagonal scan, horizontal scan, and vertical scan are introduced.” Note, diagonal scanning is usually default due to coefficients being diagonally placed within a block. The combination of references relies on Fan providing a row-wise transform for which transform coefficients can optimally be vectorized with the row-based scan order of Lee).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed row-based processing, as taught by Lee ([0135]), in Koo, Zhao, and Fan’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Koo, Zhao, and Fan’s invention, by incorporating Lee’s invention, because it would have been obvious to try given the finite number of identifiable ways to scan (i.e., diagonal, vertical, and horizontal), each having a predictable solution of a scanning order with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Regarding claim 5, Koo, Zhao, and Fan disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Koo, Zhao, and Fan fail to expressly disclose when the 1D primary transform is applied column-wise, vectorizing coefficients in each column using column-based scan order.
However, Lee teaches when the 1D primary transform is applied column-wise, vectorizing coefficients in each row using column-based scan order ([0135], “Coefficients in a dequantized block may be rearranged in a one-dimensional vector according to a block scanning method. From the left side of FIG. 5, diagonal scan, horizontal scan, and vertical scan are introduced.” Note, diagonal scanning is usually default due to coefficients being diagonally placed within a block. The combination of references relies on Fan providing a column-wise transform for which transform coefficients can optimally be vectorized with the column-based scan order of Lee).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed column-based processing, as taught by Lee ([0135]), in Koo, Zhao, and Fan’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Koo, Zhao, and Fan’s invention, by incorporating Lee’s invention, because it would have been obvious to try given the finite number of identifiable ways to scan (i.e., diagonal, vertical, and horizontal), each having a predictable solution of a scanning order with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Regarding claim 12, the limitations are the same as those in claim 4. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 4 applies to claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations are the same as those in claim 5. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 5 applies to claim 13.
Examiner’s Note: The rejection of claims 16-20 above is an alternative rejection for which the entire claim is given weight. However, the claims recite a product-by-process for which the process in which the product is generated is given no patentable weight. Additionally, the data in the bitstream itself is non-functional descriptive material. See 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection below.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2022/0116605 A1 (hereinafter “Koo”).
Regarding claim 16, Koo discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a video bitstream that is generated by a video encoding method, the video bitstream comprising: […]; and wherein the video encoding method comprises: […] (Claim 16’s recitation of “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a video bitstream that is generated by a video encoding method” is a product-by-process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP § 2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes generating the bitstream conforming to a format rule manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 16 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore, the bitstream structure, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Koo which recites: [0097], “The bitstream may be generated by an encoding method or a bitstream generation method to which the present disclosure is applied and the streaming server 420 can temporarily store the bitstream”).
Regarding claims 17-20, the same rationale of claim 16 applies to each of claims 17-20, because the subject matter therein pertains to the video encoding method (i.e., the process) and does not further structurally define the structure (i.e., the product).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Publication No. 2022/0385943 A1 – Describes the use of a primary and secondary transform with setting to zero higher frequencies. See FIGS. 5 and 9.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-0677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 AM - 5PM EST.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/STUART D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
