DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 09/25/2025. Claims 19-38 are pending and are examined.
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The reference(s) listed on the Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted on 02/25/2026 has/have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 19-21, 27, 30-32, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al., WO 2024/080784 A1 (English Translation provided cited in PTO-892; please note the US Provisional 63/415,632, filed 10/12/2022), hereby Lim, in view of US Patent Application Publication No.: 2021/0076043 A1, hereby Zhang.
Lim discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Regarding Claims 19, 27, 30, and 36, Lim discloses a device for video decoding, a device for video encoding, a method for video decoding, and a method for video encoding (Figs. 1-3 and 6), comprising:
“a processor (Figs. 1-3 and 6) configured to:
receive a sequence parameter indication that indicates whether a first transform type is activated for a . . . slice . . . (Figs. 1-3 and 6; pages 15-16, Example 1, primarily page 16, disclosing activation/deactivation of non-separable first-order transformation, utilizing sps_nspt_enabled_flag, which can be signaled through not only SPS syntax, but also PPS, picture header syntax, or slice header syntax);
determine that a slice is of the . . . slice . . . (Figs. 1-3 and 6; pages 15-16, Example 1, primarily page 16, disclosing activation/deactivation of non-separable first-order transformation, utilizing sps_nspt_enabled_flag, which can be signaled through not only SPS syntax, but also PPS, picture header syntax, or slice header syntax);
determine, based on the sequence parameter indication, that the first transform type is not to be applied to the slice (Figs. 1-3 and 6; pages 15-16, Example 1, primarily page 16, disclosing activation/deactivation of non-separable first-order transformation, utilizing sps_nspt_enabled_flag, which can be signaled through not only SPS syntax, but also PPS, picture header syntax, or slice header syntax); and
decode the slice based on the determination that the first transform type is not be to applied to the slice (Figs. 1-3 and 6; pages 15-16, Example 1, primarily page 16, disclosing activation/deactivation of non-separable first-order transformation, utilizing sps_nspt_enabled_flag, which can be signaled through not only SPS syntax, but also PPS, picture header syntax, or slice header syntax).”
However, although Lim does not expressly disclose slice type, Zhang does expressly disclose the following:
“. . . :
receive a . . . parameter indication that indicates whether a first transform type is activated for a first slice type ([0151]-[0157], disclosing a flag may be signaled in the picture parameter set/slice header/picture header, etc., to indicate use of NSST, and further disclosing a flag may be signaled to indicate whether NSST is enabled for intra-coded blocks or inter-coded blocks; see also Figs. 30 and 32);
determine that a slice is of the first slice type ([0151]-[0157], disclosing a flag may be signaled in the picture parameter set/slice header/picture header, etc., to indicate use of NSST, and further disclosing a flag may be signaled to indicate whether NSST is enabled for intra-coded blocks or inter-coded blocks; see also Figs. 30 and 32);
determine, based on the . . . parameter indication, that the first transform type is not to be applied to the slice ([0151]-[0157], disclosing a flag may be signaled in the picture parameter set/slice header/picture header, etc., to indicate use of NSST, and further disclosing a flag may be signaled to indicate whether NSST is enabled for intra-coded blocks or inter-coded blocks; see also Figs. 30 and 32); and . . . .”
Accordingly, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lim and Zhang (hereby Lim-Zhang), to modify a device and method for video decoding and encoding of Lim to use the claimed slice type as in Zhang. The motivation for doing so would have been to create the advantage of providing video coding with higher coding efficiencies but lower computational complexity (see Zhang, Figs. 30 and 32, and [0150]-[0157]).
Regarding Claims 20 and 31, Lim-Zhang discloses:
“wherein the slice (Zhang, [0151]-[0157], disclosing a flag may be signaled in the picture parameter set/slice header/picture header, etc., to indicate use of NSST, and further disclosing a flag may be signaled to indicate whether NSST is enabled for intra-coded blocks or inter-coded blocks; see also Figs. 30 and 32) is decoded based on a second transform type, wherein the first and second transform types are different (Lim, Figs. 1-3 and 6; pages 15-16, Example 1, primarily page 16, disclosing activation/deactivation of non-separable first-order transformation (i.e., separate or non-separated transformation), utilizing sps_nspt_enabled_flag, which can be signaled through not only SPS syntax, but also PPS, picture header syntax, or slice header syntax).”
The motivation that was utilized in Claims 20 and 31 applies equally as well here.
Regarding Claims 21 and 32, Lim-Zhang discloses:
“wherein the sequence parameter indication is a first sequence parameter indication (Lim, Figs. 1-3 and 6; pages 15-16, Example 1, primarily page 16, disclosing activation/deactivation of non-separable first-order transformation (i.e., separate or non-separated transformation), utilizing sps_nspt_enabled_flag, which can be signaled through not only SPS syntax, but also PPS, picture header syntax, or slice header syntax), the slice is a first slice (Zhang, [0151]-[0157], disclosing a flag may be signaled in the picture parameter set/slice header/picture header, etc., to indicate use of NSST, and further disclosing a flag may be signaled to indicate whether NSST is enabled for intra-coded blocks or inter-coded blocks; see also Figs. 30 and 32), and wherein the processor (Lim, Figs. 1-3 and 6) is further configured to:
receive a second sequence parameter indication that indicates an activation of the first transform type (Lim, Figs. 1-3 and 6; pages 15-16, Example 1, primarily page 16, disclosing activation/deactivation of non-separable first-order transformation (i.e., separate or non-separated transformation), utilizing sps_nspt_enabled_flag, which can be signaled through not only SPS syntax, but also PPS, picture header syntax, or slice header syntax) for a second slice type (Zhang, [0151]-[0157], disclosing a flag may be signaled in the picture parameter set/slice header/picture header, etc., to indicate use of NSST, and further disclosing a flag may be signaled to indicate whether NSST is enabled for intra-coded blocks or inter-coded blocks; see also Figs. 30 and 32); and
based on the second sequence parameter indication (Lim, Figs. 1-3 and 6; pages 15-16, Example 1, primarily page 16, disclosing activation/deactivation of non-separable first-order transformation (i.e., separate or non-separated transformation), utilizing sps_nspt_enabled_flag, which can be signaled through not only SPS syntax, but also PPS, picture header syntax, or slice header syntax), decode a second slice of the second slice type (Zhang, [0151]-[0157], disclosing a flag may be signaled in the picture parameter set/slice header/picture header, etc., to indicate use of NSST, and further disclosing a flag may be signaled to indicate whether NSST is enabled for intra-coded blocks or inter-coded blocks; see also Figs. 30 and 32) using the first transform type (Lim, Figs. 1-3 and 6; pages 15-16, Example 1, primarily page 16, disclosing activation/deactivation of non-separable first-order transformation (i.e., separate or non-separated transformation), utilizing sps_nspt_enabled_flag, which can be signaled through not only SPS syntax, but also PPS, picture header syntax, or slice header syntax).”
The motivation that was utilized in Claims 20 and 31 applies equally as well here.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 25, 28, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim-Zhang, and in further view of Ghaznavi Youvalari et al., US Patent Application Publication No.: 2026/0006248 A1, hereby GhaznaviYouvalari.
Regarding Claims 25, 28, and 37, Lim-Zhang discloses:
“wherein the processor (Lim, Figs. 1-3 and 6) is further configured to:
. . . ; and
determine that the first transform type (Lim, Figs. 1-3 and 6; pages 15-16, Example 1, primarily page 16, disclosing activation/deactivation of non-separable first-order transformation (i.e., separate or non-separated transformation), utilizing sps_nspt_enabled_flag, which can be signaled through not only SPS syntax, but also PPS, picture header syntax, or slice header syntax) is to be applied based on a condition that the prediction type is a . . . prediction type . . . (Zhang, [0151]-[0157], disclosing a flag may be signaled in the picture parameter set/slice header/picture header, etc., to indicate use of NSST, and further disclosing a flag may be signaled to indicate whether NSST is enabled for intra-coded blocks or inter-coded blocks; see also Figs. 30 and 32).”
However, although Lim-Zhang does not expressly disclose the claimed neighboring blocks and dominant prediction, GhaznaviYouvalari does expressly disclose the following:
“wherein the processor (Figs. 1-4 and 15-16) is further configured to:
identify a plurality of neighboring blocks of a block; determine a prediction type of a respective neighboring block of the plurality of neighboring blocks, wherein the prediction type indicates an intra-prediction type or an inter-prediction type; and determine that the first transform type is to be applied based on a condition that the prediction type is a dominant prediction type among the plurality of neighboring blocks (Figs. 1-4 and 15-16, and [0245]).”
Accordingly, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lim-Zhang and GhaznaviYouvalari, to modify a device and method for video decoding and encoding of Lim-Zhang to use the claimed slice type as in GhaznaviYouvalari. The motivation for doing so would have been to create the advantage of providing improved derivation in the prediction process (see GhaznaviYouvalari, Figs. 1-4 and 15-16, and [0006], [0233], and [0245]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-24, 26, 29, 33-35, and 38 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Examiner notes that multiple references cited disclose non-separable transforms in video coding. For example, the following references show similar features in the claims, although not relied upon: Wang (US 20230122189 A1), [0088], disclosing “no_lfnst_constraint_flag equal to 1 specifies that sps_lfnst_enabled_flag shall be equal to 0. no_lfnst_constraint_flag equal to 0 does not impose such a constraint.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN M WALSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/KATHLEEN M WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights