REMARKS
`
`In an Office Action dated September 18, 2019, claims 17-22, 29, 30, 33 and 35 were
`
`rejected. Herein, claims 17, 19, 29, 30, and 33 have been amended. No new matter has been
`
`added. Additionally, claims 23 -28, 31, 32, 34, and 36 have been cancelled without prejudice or
`
`disclaimer to the subject matter therein. Applicant respectfully requests further examination and
`
`reconsideration in view of the following remarks.
`
`1.
`
`Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102
`
`Claims 17-22, 29, 30, 33, and 35 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being
`
`anticipated by Sato (US 2014/007203 7). Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of the
`
`above-noted rejection in view of the following.
`
`Claim 17 recites the following features:
`
`setting, for each of predetermined units of the video, a quantization matrix set to be used
`
`to perform quantization on a target block, the quantization matrix set including a plurality of
`
`quantization matrices,
`
`wherein, in the setting:
`
`a quantization matrix set is selected, for each of the predetermined units of the
`
`video, from (i) an arbitrary quantization matrix set which is arbitrarily specified and is
`
`encoded and (ii) a plurality of default quantization matrix sets which have been
`
`respectively defined in advance and are not encoded, and the selected quantization matrix
`
`set is set as the quantization matrix set to be used to perform the quantization on the
`
`target block, and
`
`when the plurality of default quantization matrix sets include a first set and a second set,
`
`respectively, as default quantization matrix sets,
`
`a quantization matrix in the first set which corresponds to a block size is different
`
`from a quantization matrix in the second set which corresponds to the block size.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that the above-noted features of claim 17 are not
`
`disclosed, suggested, or otherwise rendered obvious by Sato based on the following.
`
`

`

`In the “Response to Arguments” section on page 3 of the Office Action, the Examiner
`
`states the following:
`
`“However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner points to Sato that
`discloses the well-known concept pertaining to the features related to “a plurality
`of default quantization matrix sets which have been respectively defined in
`advance,” (see figs. 4-5, where the examiner notes that referring to figs. 4-5
`shows a list index table that indicates a plurality of different quantization matrix
`sets (e.g. “4x4, 8x8, 16x16, 32x32”) containing information to be encoded that
`have already been user-defined.”
`
`However, Applicant notes that claim 17 has been amended to clarify that the plurality of
`
`default quantization matrix sets, which are respectively defined in advance, are not encoded, and
`
`as such, it is respectfully submitted that the user-defined quantization matrix sets, which contain
`
`information to be encoded, disclosed by FIGs. 4 and 5 of Sato do not correspond to the plurality
`
`of default quantization matrix sets, as required by the above-noted features of amended claim 17.
`
`Further, it is noted that amended claim 17 requires a feature of “when the plurality of
`
`default quantization matrix sets include a first set and a second set, respectively, as default
`
`quantization matrix sets, a quantization matrix in the first set which corresponds to a block size is
`
`different from a quantization matrix in the second set which corresponds to the block size,” and
`
`as such, it is respectfully submitted that the user-defined quantization matrix sets, which vagv_
`
`between block sizes, disclosed by FIGs. 4 and 5 of Sato do not correspond to the plurality of
`
`default quantization matrix sets, as required by the above-noted features of amended claim 17.
`
`In view of the above, Applicant respectfully submits that Sato fails to disclose, suggest,
`
`or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of claim 17. Accordingly, claim 17 is
`
`patentable over Sato.
`
`Claims 18-22 and 35 are patentable over Sato based at least on their dependency from
`
`claim 17.
`
`Claims 29, 30, and 33 recite features generally corresponding to the above-noted features
`
`of claim 17. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Sato fails to disclose, suggest, or
`
`

`

`otherwise render obvious these corresponding features of claims 29, 30, and 33 for reasons
`
`similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 17, and as such, claims 29, 30, and 33 are
`
`patentable over Sato.
`
`11.
`
`Conclusion
`
`In view of the foregoing amendments and remarks, Applicant respectfully submits that
`
`claims 17-22, 29, 30, 33 and 35 are clearly in condition for allowance. An early notice thereof is
`
`earnestly solicited.
`
`If, after reviewing this Amendment, the Examiner believes that there are any issues
`
`remaining which must be resolved before the application can be passed to issue, it is respectfully
`
`requested that the Examiner contact the undersigned by telephone in order to resolve such issues.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Stephen W. Kopchik/
`2019.12.18 09:23:58 -05'00'
`
`
`Stephen W. Kopchik
`Registration No. 61,215
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P.
`1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 500
`Washington, DC. 20036
`Telephone (202) 721-8200
`Facsimile (202) 721-8250
`December 18, 2019
`
`The Director is hereby authorized to charge any fees which may be required, or credit any overpayment
`to Deposit Account No. 23-09 75.
`
`10
`
`