DETAILED ACTION
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 19/559,215 (reference application). The difference between the instant application and the co-pending application being the limitation “determining whether to apply the one or more additional transforms to the residual block based on the related information” in claims 1, 8, and 9. Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the prior art rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “deriving the transform coefficient based on the quantization parameter prediction value and a quantization parameter difference value for the current block”. The applicant’s originally filed specification fails to disclose this limitation. The examiner notes [0104]-[0111] of the applicant’s originally filed specification discloses the use of quantization parameter prediction value and a quantization parameter difference value for determining a quantization parameter, however neither of the cited sections teach the derivation of transform coefficients using a quantization parameter prediction value and a quantization parameter difference value.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-6, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (Kim) (US 2019/0149822).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an image decoding method, comprising:
obtaining, from a bitstream, related information indicating whether one or more additional transforms applicable to a residual block of a current block are supported ([0038], [0054], secondary transforms are used to generate transform coefficients from residual data; [0044], secondary transform data may include a CU-level flag syntax element (e.g., a one-bit syntax element cu_nsst_flag) indicating whether a secondary transform may be applied to a block);
generating the residual block by inversely transforming a transform coefficient of the current block ([0052], an inverse quantization and transform coefficient processing unit may be configured to apply an inverse quantization and an inverse transformation to generate reconstructed residual data); and
determining whether to apply the one or more additional transforms to the residual block based on the related information ([0038], secondary transforms are used to generate transform coefficients from residual data; [0044], secondary transform data may include a CU-level flag syntax element (e.g., a one-bit syntax element cu_nsst_flag) indicating whether a secondary transform may be applied to a block),
wherein information used for the one or more additional transforms ([0044], [0048], a TU-level index syntax element (e.g., a two-bit syntax element tu_nsst_idx) indicating a matrix for a secondary transform; [0020], a transformation matrix indicates a transformation type) is obtained from the bitstream when the related information ([0044], if cu_nsst_flag) indicates that the one or more additional transforms are supported ([0044], [0046], if cu_nsst_flag indicates that performance of secondary transforms is disabled for the CU, tu_nsst_idx are not signaled; secondary transform data may include a CU-level flag syntax element (e.g., a one-bit syntax element cu_nsst_flag) indicating whether a secondary transform may be applied to one or more TUs with the CU and for each TU within the CU a TU-level index syntax element (e.g., a two-bit syntax element tu_nsst_idx) indicating a matrix for a secondary transform; [0048], where secondary transform determination unit 304 uses cu_nsst_flag and tu_nsst_idx syntax elements, as described above, to indicate whether a secondary transform is applied).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses wherein a number of the one or more additional transforms is 2 or more ([0020], Transform matrices may correspond to one of the eight versions of DCT or one of the eight versions of DST, where the eight versions of DCT and the eight versions of DST form the family of discrete trigonometric transforms).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses wherein the related information are obtained from a sequence level or a picture level of the bitstream ([0048], syntax is signaled at slice or picture level).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses wherein an additional transform, among the one or more additional transforms, applied to the residual block is determined based on a block partition mode of the current block ([0043], [0044], a TU-level index syntax element (e.g., a two-bit syntax element tu_nsst_idx) indicating a matrix (type) for a secondary transform and/or indicating whether a secondary transform is applied for the TU; [0046], it is determined to apply a secondary among the plurality of transforms based on a partition type of the block; tu_nsst_flag and tu_nsst_idx (i.e a signaling of a transform index which signals a transform type) may be conditionally signaled based on properties or parameter associated with a TU. For example, a partition type; [0060], in the case of where a CU corresponds to an intra prediction N×N partition mode, in one example, video decoder 800 may be configured to… Table 3A provides an example of unique TU_MAP values that may be generated by video decoder 800 based on a secondary transform being used to generate coefficients for one or more of TU0,0, TU1,0, TU0,1, and TU1,1).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses wherein an additional transform, among the one or more additional transforms, applied to the residual block is determined based on an encoding mode of the current block ([0020], particular transform sets may correspond to intra prediction modes; [0023], Table 1 illustrates how one of the 12 transform sets (i.e., Sets 0 to 11) are mapped to prediction modes in JEM; [0024], in JEM, the 2-bit CU-level index value is used to indicate a transform matrix for a transform set of a secondary transform, where the 2-bit CU-level index value has a value of 0, 1, or 2 for the DC and planar prediction modes and has a value of 0, 1, 2, or 3 for the directional prediction modes).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses wherein an additional transform, among the one or more additional transforms, applied to the residual block is determined based on an intra prediction mode of the current block ([0020], particular transform sets may correspond to intra prediction modes).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses an image encoding method, comprising:
performing one or more additional transforms on a residual block of a current block ([0038], [0054], secondary transforms are used to generate transform coefficients from residual data; [0044], secondary transform data may include a CU-level flag syntax element (e.g., a one-bit syntax element cu_nsst_flag) indicating whether a secondary transform may be applied to a block);
generating a transform coefficient of the current block by transforming the residual block on which the one or more additional transforms is performed ([0038], [0054], secondary transforms are used to generate transform coefficients from residual data; [0044], secondary transform data may include a CU-level flag syntax element (e.g., a one-bit syntax element cu_nsst_flag) indicating whether a secondary transform may be applied to a block); and
encoding, into a bitstream, related information ([0044], [0046], if cu_nsst_flag) indicating whether the one or more additional transforms is supported and information used for the one or more additional transform ([0044], [0046], if cu_nsst_flag indicates that performance of secondary transforms is disabled for the CU, tu_nsst_idx are not signaled; secondary transform data may include a CU-level flag syntax element (e.g., a one-bit syntax element cu_nsst_flag) indicating whether a secondary transform may be applied to one or more TUs with the CU and for each TU within the CU a TU-level index syntax element (e.g., a two-bit syntax element tu_nsst_idx) indicating a matrix for a secondary transform; [0048], where secondary transform determination unit 304 uses cu_nsst_flag and tu_nsst_idx syntax elements, as described above, to indicate whether a secondary transform is applied),
wherein the information used for the one or more additional transforms is encoded when the related information indicates that the one or more additional transforms are supported ([0044], [0046], if cu_nsst_flag indicates that performance of secondary transforms is disabled for the CU, tu_nsst_idx are not signaled; secondary transform data may include a CU-level flag syntax element (e.g., a one-bit syntax element cu_nsst_flag) indicating whether a secondary transform may be applied to one or more TUs with the CU and for each TU within the CU a TU-level index syntax element (e.g., a two-bit syntax element tu_nsst_idx) indicating a matrix for a secondary transform; [0048], where secondary transform determination unit 304 uses cu_nsst_flag and tu_nsst_idx syntax elements, as described above, to indicate whether a secondary transform is applied).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of claim 9 are rejected in the analysis of claim 8 (see claim 8 above). Kim further discloses transmitting the bitstream (FIG. 1, the bitstream encoded via encoder 106 is transmitted to decoder 124).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhao et al. (Zhao) (US 2019/0124366) teaches the following limitations of instant claim 7:
deriving a quantization parameter prediction value for the current block based on a quantization parameter set at a unit higher than the current block or a quantization parameter set at the same unit as the current block ([0027], a predictive quantization parameter (QP) is derived based on a QP signaled at a slice level or a block level); and
wherein the quantization parameter difference value is obtained from the bitstream based on first information included in the bitstream ([0030], Quantized transform coefficients and QP data (e.g., delta QP values) may be entropy coded according to an entropy encoding technique (e.g., content adaptive variable length coding (CAVLC), context adaptive binary arithmetic coding).
Karczewicz et al. (Karczewicz) (US 2014/0056361) ([0061] residual data is transformed; [0009], a primary or an alternative transform is applied to a block).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7579. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Sath Perungavoor can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/JEFFERY A WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights