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
`
`oC
`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
`
`10/16/2020
`
`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)
`
`

`

`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 8/24/2020.
`LC} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)l¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J 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.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-5,7-13 and 15-16 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`CJ] Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-5,7-13 and 15-16 is/are rejected.
`OO Claim(s)__is/are objectedto.
`CC) Claim(s)
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`* 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)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`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 20201005
`
`

`

`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
`
`Thefollowingis a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which formsthebasisforall
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`A patent for a claimed invention maynot be obtained, notwithstanding thatthe claimed invention
`is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences betweenthe 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 havingordinaryskill
`in the art to whichthe claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the
`mannerin whichthe invention was made.
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1-5, 8-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Lee (US PG Publication 2019/0222843} in view of Tanizawa (US PG Publication
`
`Z016/O119613) and Kim (US PG Publication ZDI@/OZB1217}.
`
`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 Publication Z016/O119618)
`
`%
`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]}.
`
`Lee dees not explicitly disclose, but Kim (US Pi Publication 2019/0281217} teaches
`
`the second transform basis is adaptively selected from among a plurality of
`
`transform bases (For the intra-prediction, for example, DCT-] may be applied horizontally
`
`and DST-I may be applied vertically whenthe prediction mode ts a horizontal made, DST-VI
`
`may be applied horizontally and DCT-Vi may be applied vertically whenthe prediction
`
`miodei is a vertical made, DC'T-U may be applied horizontally and DCT-V may be applied
`
`vertically when the prediction mode is [hagonal downleft, and DST-I may be applied
`
`horizontally and DST-VIi maybe applied vertically when the prediction mode is Diagonal
`
`down right (0075]); and
`
`the processor further writes, into a bitstream, information indicating the
`
`second transform hasis selected (prediction modeis encoded [MG8)).
`
`it would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art before the application
`
`was filed to modify Lee to transformdirectional and non-directional intra modes with
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/426,822
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 4
`
`different transforms because Tanizawa teaches transformation basis designed toe match
`
`prediction direction Increases coefficient density after an orthogonal transformation
`
`resulting in bmproved coding efficiency ([0003]-[G06051).
`
`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 Kim’s direction-
`
`based transform because Tanizawa teaches transformation basis designed ta match
`
`prediction direction increases coefficient density after an orthogonal transformation
`
`resulting In improved coding efficiency ([O0031]-[G0GSH).
`
`Regarding Cialm 2, Lee (US 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 4.4 (02521), 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 rot satisfy 4x4intra, transform using DCT-I (0252Z]}.
`
`Regarding Claim3, Lee (US PG Publication 2019/0222843} 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]: transform set
`
`index indicates size threshold [O2641-f0265]),
`
`Regarding Claim 4, Lee (US PG Publication 2019/0222043} discloses the encoder
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/426,822
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 5
`
`according to claim 1, wherein the second transform basis is a predefined fixedbasis
`
`or a basis determined based on a coding parameter (DST-VH (02521).
`
`Regarding Claim 5, Lee [US PG Publication 2019/0222843) discloses the encoder
`
`according to claim 4, wherein the first transform basis is a basis of DCT-H (DCT-I
`
`[O252]}.
`
`Lee does nat explicitly disclase, but Kim (US PG Publication 2019/0281217) teaches
`
`and the second transform hasts is a basis of DCT-V (DCT-V [DG7 Si:
`
`it would have been obvicus to one cfordinary skill in the art before the application
`
`was fled to replace Lee's transform for directional prediction modes with DCT-V because
`
`Kim teaches that the DCT-V is beneficial for certain directional prediction mades (fO0075]1.
`
`Regarding Cialm 8, Claim 8 is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 1.
`
`Regarding Claim9, Claim9 is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim1.
`
`Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 is rejected on the grounds provided In ClaimZ.
`
`Regarding Claim 11, Claim 24 is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 3.
`
`Regarding Clatm 12, Claim 12 is rejected on the grounds provided tnClaim4.
`
`Regarding Claim 13, Claim 43 is rejected on the grounds provided In Claim5,
`
`Regarding Ciaim 16, Clairn 16 is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim1.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US
`
`PG Publication 2019/0222843) in view of Tanizawa (US PG Publication 2016/O0119619}
`
`and Kim (US PG Publication 2019/0281217), further in view of hao (NPL: Zhao, “Video
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/426,822
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 6
`
`Coding with Rate-Distortion Optimized Transform,” IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS
`
`AND SYSTEMS POR VIDEO TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 22, NO. 1, JANUARY 2012}.
`
`Regarding Cialm 7, Lee (US PG Publication 2019/0222843) discloses the encoder
`
`according to claim1, wherein
`
`when the first transform mode is applied (adaptive transform type
`
`determination from prediction mode, size, (O260]}, the current block is transformed
`
`using the first transform basis or the second transform basis {candidate 0 or 1, Pable
`
`Js
`
`the second transform basis is a predefined fixed basis or a basis determined
`
`hased on a coding parameter (determined based on transformset index, Tables 3, 5}.
`
`Lee does not explicitly disclose, but Zhao (NPL: Zhao,
`
`ey
`“Video Coding with Rate-
`
`Distortion Optimized Transform,” IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMSFOR
`
`VIDEO TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 22, NO. 1, JANUARY2012) teaches the processor further
`
`determines which one of transform modes inchiding a first transform mode (usage of
`
`conventional mode, Pape 142 left Colurnn} and a second transform mode (usage of RDOT
`
`made, Page 142 left Column) is applied to the current block (MP partitions, Page 142 left
`
`Cofuminl,
`
`when the second transform mode is applied (usage of RDOT mode, Page 142 left
`
`Cofumn], the current block is transformed using a third transform basis (transform
`
`with the transformindicated by the transform index, Page 142 left Column},
`
`the third transform basis is adaptively selected from among a plurality of
`
`transform bases (transform identified by transform index, Page 142 left Column}, and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/426,822
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 7
`
`when the second transiorm mode is applied (usage of RDOT made, Page 142 leff
`
`Cohumn), the processor further writes, into a bitstream, information indicating the
`
`third transform basis selected (transform index is encoded, Page 142 ieft Column}.
`
`it would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art before the application
`
`was filed to include 4 conditional statement in Lee to choase a rate-distortion-optimized
`
`transform because Zhao teaches one fixed set of transform basis finctions 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, Claim15 is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim7.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 8/24/2020 have been fully considered but they are not
`
`persuasive.
`
`Applicant argues on Remarks Pp. 7-8 that Kim does not teach adaptively selecting the
`
`transform because Kim doesnot evaluate cost. Applicant’s argumentis not persuasive because
`
`Applicant has not interpreted the term “adaptively” according to Applicant’s specification.
`
`Applicant’s specification filed 5/30/2019 discloses that the second transform basis is selected
`
`based on a coding parameter, and a cost evaluation is unnecessary (Pp. 8 lines 1-10). Therefore,
`
`according to Applicant’s specification, adaptively selecting the transform meansthat the
`
`transform is selected based on a coding parameter. Kim selects the transform based on the intra
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/426,822
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 8
`
`prediction mode and intra prediction modeis a coding parameter. Therefore, Kim adaptively
`
`selects the transform.
`
`Applicant also argues on RemarksPp. 8 that Kim does not teach ...writes, into the
`
`bitstream, information indicating the second transform... because Kim selects the transform
`
`based on the intra prediction mode. The argumentis not persuasive because Applicant has not
`
`applied the broadest reasonable interpretation of “information.” The intra prediction mode of
`
`Kim is information, and it indicates the second transform [0075]; it is also written into the
`
`bitstream (Kim [0068]). Therefore, Kim writes information indicating the second transform into
`
`the bitstream.
`
`For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
`
`Conclusion
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time
`
`policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this action. In the eventa first reply is filed within TWO
`
`MONTHSofthe mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after
`
`the end of the THREE-MONTHshortenedstatutory period, then the shortened statutory period
`
`will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37
`
`CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event,
`
`however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SLX MONTHSfrom the mailing
`
`date ofthis final action.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/426,822
`Art Unit: 2485
`
`Page 9
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to SHADAN E HAGHANIwhose telephone numberis (571)270-
`
`5631. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-7.
`
`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 numberfor the
`
`organization wherethis application or proceeding is 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 about the PAIR
`
`system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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 Customer Service Representative or access to
`
`the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA)or 571-272-
`
`1000.
`
`/SHADAN E HAGHANT/
`Examiner, Art Unit 2485
`
`