www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address; COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/426,822
`
`05/30/2019
`
`Masato OHKAWA
`
`2019-0922A
`
`4917
`
`Cp
`Lind&
`Wenderoth,
`Wenderoth, Lind & Ponack, L.L.P.
`1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`Suite 500
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`HAGHANI, SHADAN E
`
`2485
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`05/22/2020
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`eoa@ wenderoth.com
`kmiller@wenderoth.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-16 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`CC) Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected.
`S)
`) O Claim(s)___is/are objected to.
`C) Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`S)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)) accepted or b)() objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)0) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)X None ofthe:
`b)L) Some**
`a)L) All
`1... Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) (J Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`4)
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20200519
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`16/426,822
`OHKAWAetal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`SHADAN E HAGHANI
`2485
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEofthis communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133}.
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 5/30/2019.
`LC} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)(J This action is FINAL. 2b))This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4\(Z Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/426,822
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 2
`
`Notice ofPre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined underthe
`
`first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Claim Rejections- 35 USC § 103
`
`The followingis a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which formsthe basis forall
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`A patent for a claimed invention maynot be obtained, notwithstandingthat the claimed invention
`is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed
`invention and thepriorart are such that the claimedinvention as a whole would have been
`obvious beforetheeffective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill
`in the art to whichthe claimed inventionpertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the
`mannerin whichthe invention was made.
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1-4, 8-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Lee (US PG Publication 2019/02223843} in view of Tanizawa (US PG Publlation
`
`Z2016/O119618}.
`
`Regarding Claim 1, Lee (US PG Publication 2019/0222843} discloses an encoder
`
`which encodes a current block to be encoded in an image (encoderFig. 1}, the encoder
`
`COMprising:
`
`a processor (software [(03Z0]};
`
`and memory, wherein using the memory(software [03201], the processor:
`
`determines which one of intra processing and inter processing is applied to
`
`the current block (ifthe block is intra [0252]).
`
`Lee does nat explicitly disclase but Tanizawa (US PG Publiation 2016/0119618)
`
`%
`teaches when the intra processing is applied te the current block (intra 111, Fic. 1},
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/426,822
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 3
`
`determines whether an intra prediction mode for the current block is a non-
`
`directional prediction mode (DC mode vs directional modes Fig, 7A};
`
`when the intra prediction mode for the current block is the non-directional
`
`prediction mode (DC mode, Fig. 7A}, transforms the current block using a first
`
`transform basis (Transformidx 1, Fig. 7A, 78, 5, 63;
`
`and when the intra prediction mode for the current block is not the non-
`
`directional prediction mode (directional modes Fig. 7A}, transforms the current block
`
`using a second transform basis (Transformidx 0, Fig. 7A, 75, 5, 6), and the first
`
`transform basis is a predefined fixed basis or a basis determined based on a coding
`
`parameter (DCP O085]}.
`
`it would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art before the application
`
`was fled to modify Lee to transformdirectional and non-directional intra modes with
`
`different transforms because Tanizawa teaches transformation basis designed to match
`
`prediction direction Increases coefficient density after an orthogonal] transformation
`
`resulting in bmproved coding efficiency ([0003]-/O0057h.
`
`Regarding Clatm 2, Lee CUS PG Publication 2019 /0222843} discloses the encoder
`
`according to claim 1, wherein the processor further determines whether the current
`
`block has a size smaller than a threshold size {condition 4x4 [0252]), and when the
`
`current block has a size larger than or equal to the threshold size, transforms the
`
`current block using the first transform basis even when the intra prediction mode
`
`for the current block is not the non-directional prediction mode (ifthe current block
`
`does not satisfy 4x4 intra, transform using DCT-I fO252]},
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/426,822
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 4
`
`Regarding Claim3, Lee (US PG Publication 2019/02226843) discloses the encoder
`
`according to claim 2, wherein the processor further writes information on the
`
`threshold size into a bitstream (transform set index in bitstream [0262]; transformset
`
`index indicates size threshold (O2641-f02651]}.
`
`Regarding Cialm 4, Lee (US PG Publication 2019/0222843) discloses the encoder
`
`according to claim1, wherein the second transform basis ts a predefined fixed hasis
`
`ora basis determined based on a coding parameter (DST-VH[0252]}.
`
`Regarding Claim8, Claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 1.
`
`Regarding Claim9, Claim 9 is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim1,
`
`Regarding Ciaim 16, Claim 16is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim2.
`
`Regarding Clatm 11, Claim 11is rejected on the grounds provided tin Claim3.
`
`Regarding Claim12, Claim 42 is rejected on the grounds provided In Claim4,
`
`Regarding Ciaim 16, Clairn 16 is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim1.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 5-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Lee (US PG Publication 2019/0222843} in view of Tanizawa (US PG Publiation
`
`2016/0119618), further in view of Kim (U5 PG Publication 20190281217}.
`
`Regarding Claim 5, Lee (US PG Publication 2019/0222643) discloses the encoder
`
`according to claim 4, wherein the first transform basis is a basis of BCT-H (DCT-I
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/426,822
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`(D2S2E}.
`
`Page 5
`
`Lee does not explicitlydisclose, bul Kim (US PG Publication 2019 /0281247} teaches
`
`and the second transform basis is a basis af DCT-Y (DCT-V [O0075]}.
`
`it would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art before the application
`
`was filed to replace Lee’s transform for directional prediction modes with DCT-V because
`
`Kim teaches that the DCT-Vis beneficial for certain directional prediction mades ({0075]}.
`
`Regarding Clatm 6, Lee CUS PG Publication 2019 /0222543} discloses the encoder
`
`according to claim i wherein the processor further writes, into a bitstream,
`
`information indicating the second transform basis selected {index indicating
`
`transformset decoded frombitstream [02621}.
`
`Lee does mot explicitly disclose, but Kim (US PG Publication 2019/02812 17) teaches
`
`the second transform basis is adaptively selected from among a plurality of
`
`transiorm bases (forthe Intra-prediction, for example, DCT-I] may be applied horizontally
`
`and DST-l may be applied vertically whenthe prediction mode is a horizontal mode, DST-V1
`
`may be applied horizontally and DCT-Vi maybe applied vertically when the prediction
`
`model is a vertical mode, DCT-I may be applied horizontally and DCT-V maybe applied
`
`vertically when the prediction mode is Diagonal downlef, and DST-I may be applied
`
`horizontally and DST-Vi may be applied vertically when the prediction mode is Diagonal
`
`down right [OO75]}.
`
`it would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art before the application
`
`was filed to replace Lee's transform for directional prediction modes with DCT-Y because
`
`Kim teaches that the DCT-Vis beneficial for certain directional prediction mades (f0075]}.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/426,822
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 6
`
`Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 is relected on the grounds provided in Claim &.
`
`Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 6,
`
`3.
`
`Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U5
`
`PG Publication 2019/0222843} in view of Tanizawa (US PG Publiation 2016/0119618},
`
`further in view of Zhao (NPL: Zhao, "Video Coding with Kate-Distortion Optimized
`
`Transform,” TREE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS FOR VIDEO TECHNOLOGY,
`
`VOL, 22, NO. 1, JANUARY 2032},
`
`Regarding Clatm 7, Lee CUS PG Publication 2019 /02225843} discloses the encoder
`
`according to claim 1, wherein
`
`when the first transform mode is applied (adaptive transform type
`
`determination from prediction made, size, [O260)), the current blockis transformed
`
`using the first transformbasis or the second transform basis (candidate 0 or 1, Table
`
`S)s
`
`the second transform basis is a predefined fixed basis or a basis determined
`
`based on a coding parameter (determined based on transforrn set index, Tables 3, 5}.
`
`Lee does nat explicitly disclase, but Zhac (NPL: Zhao, "Video Coding with Rate-
`
`Distortion Optimized Transform,” IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS FOR
`
`VIDEO TECHNOLOGY, VOL, 22,N0. 1 JANUARY 2012) teaches the processor further
`
`determines which one of transform modes including a first transform mode (usage of
`
`conventional mode, Page 142 left Colunin] and a second transform mode (usage of RDOT
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/426,822
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 7
`
`mode, Page 142 left Column} is applied to the current block (MP partitions, Page 142 left
`
`Cohumny,
`
`when the second transform mode is applied (usage of RDOT mode, Page 142 left
`
`Column), the current block is transformed using a third transform basis {transform
`
`with the transformindicated by the transforrn index, Page 142 left Colurnn),
`
`the third transform basis is adaptivelyselected from among a plurality of
`
`transform bases (transform identified by transform index, Page 142 teft Column}, and
`
`whenthe second transform mode is applied (usage of RDOT mode, Page 142 left
`
`Cofumn], the processor further writes, into a bitstream, information indicating the
`
`third transform basis selected (transform index is encoded, Page 142 left Column}.
`
`it would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art before the application
`
`was fled to include a conditional staternent in Lee to choose 4 rate-distortion-optimized
`
`transform because hac teaches one fived set of transform basis functions cannot handle
`
`all the cases efficiently due to the non-stationary nature of video content, and rate-
`
`distortion optimized transform, which contributes to both intra-frame and inter-frame
`
`coding, improves the performance of block-based transform coding.
`
`Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 is relected on the grounds provided In Claim7,
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examinershould be directed to SHADAN E HAGHANI whose telephone number is
`
`(571)270-5631. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-7.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/426,822
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 8
`
`Examinerinterviewsare 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 examinerby telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Jay Patel can be reached on 571-272-2988. The fax phone number for the
`
`organization wherethis application or proceedingis assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
`
`Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published
`
`applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information
`
`for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information
`
`aboutthe PAIR system,see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on
`
`access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-
`
`217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO CustomerService
`
`Representative or access to the automated information system,call 800-786-9199 (IN USA
`
`OR CANADA)or 571-272-1000.
`
`/SHADAN E HAGHANI/
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 2485
`
`