In an Office Action dated November8, 2022, claims 23 and 24 were rejected. Applicant
`
`respectfully requests further examination and reconsideration in view of the following remarks.
`
`REMARKS
`
`Applicant wishes to thank Examiner Mahmudfor the courtesies extended toward
`
`Applicant’s representative during the telephone interview conducted on March 7, 2023. During
`
`the interview, Applicant’s representative discussed whyit is believed that the presently claimed
`
`invention is allowable overthe prior art of record. It is noted that the arguments contained herein
`
`generally correspond to those made during the interview.
`
`I
`
`Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102
`
`Claims 23 and 24 wererejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsieh
`
`et al. (US 2018/0103252). Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of the above-noted
`
`rejection in view of the following.
`
`Claim 23 recites the following features:
`
`the first group of candidates includesa first transform scheme which generatesa first
`
`numberof transform coefficients using a first transform basis, and
`
`the second group of candidates includes a second transform scheme whichgenerates a
`
`second numberof transform coefficients using the first transform basis, the first numberis
`
`smaller than the second number.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that the above-noted features of claim 23 are not
`
`disclosed, suggested, or otherwise rendered obvious by Hsieh based on the following.
`
`On pages 5 and 6 of the Office Action, the Examinerstates the following:
`
`“the first group of candidates includesa first transform scheme which generates a
`first number of transform coefficients using a first transform basis, and the second
`group of candidates includes a second transform scheme which generates a
`second numberof transform coefficients using the first transform basis, the first
`numberis smaller than the second number (Paragraphs 62-65; Paragraphs 161-
`169; Paragraph 170, “In some examples, the NSST is extended for 88 for better
`coding performance, i.e., non-separable transform applied on 8x8 block size is
`used as secondary transform for primary transform coefficient block with both
`height and width being larger than or equal to 8.”; Paragraphs 171-185; Hsieh et
`
`2
`
`

`

`al. teaches selecting between and performing a second transform in a 4x4 block
`size and an 8x8 block size, each with associated group of candidates, the number
`resultant coefficients in an 8x8 block being higher than that in a 4x4 block).”
`(emphasis added).
`
`Although the Examiner points out that the numberof transform coefficients in an 8x8
`
`block is considered to be higher than the numberof transform coefficients in a 4*4 block,
`
`Applicant notes that the examples from Hsieh identified by the Examiner merely disclose that the
`
`numberof transform coefficients resulting from performing a second transform on an 8x8 block
`
`using a second transform basis for 8x8 blocks (using a 6464 matrix in the case of performing a
`
`non-separable transform) is compared with the number of transform coefficients resulting from
`
`performing a second transform on a 4~4 block using a first transform basis for 44 blocks (using
`
`a 16x16 matrix in the case of performing a non-separable transform).
`
`In other words, Hsieh only discloses using a first transform basis for 4x4 blocks and a
`
`second transform basis for 88 blocks different from the first transform basis for 4x4 blocks, that
`performing a second transform using different transform bases (a 4x4
`is, Hsieh discloses
`basis and an 8x8 basis) when block sizes are different.
`
`However, Hsieh fails to teach that the numbersof transform coefficients obtained
`
`through the secondtransform are different when the second transform is applied to current
`
`blocks of different sizes using a same transform basis for generating transform coefficients.
`
`In contrast to Hsieh, the above-noted features of claim 23 require performing a second
`
`transform on blocksof different sizes using the same transform basis for generating
`
`transform coefficients, such as a transform schemeapplied to 8x8 blocks or a transform scheme
`
`applied to 4x4 blocks.
`
`In other words, claim 23 requires that in a second transform,the first transform basis
`
`for generating transform coefficients is used whicheversize (e.g., the first block size or the
`
`second block size) that the size of a current block may be.
`
`

`

`Therefore, the numberof transform coefficients (the first number) that are generated
`
`using thefirst transform basis for a current block having thefirst block size is smaller than the
`
`numberof transform coefficients (the second number) that are generated using the first transform
`
`basis for a current block having the secondblocksize.
`
`Accordingly, Hsieh necessarily fails to teach “the first group of candidates includesa first
`
`transform scheme which generates a first number of transform coefficients using a first
`
`transform basis,” and “the second group of candidates includes a second transform scheme
`
`which generates a second numberoftransform coefficients using the first transform basis, the
`
`first numberis smaller than the second number,” as required by the above-noted features of
`
`claim 23.
`
`Additionally, by providing the above-noted features of claim 23, the presently claimed
`
`invention enables performing a second transform process on blocks of different sizes using
`
`the same transform basis for generating transform candidates, and thereby, the numberof
`
`bases held by the encoder or decoder can be reduced.
`
`In view of the above, Applicant respectfully submits that Hsieh fails to disclose, suggest,
`
`or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of claim 23. Accordingly, claim 23 is
`
`patentable over Hsieh.
`
`Claim 24 recites features generally corresponding to the above-noted features of claim
`
`23. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Hsieh fails to disclose, suggest, or
`
`otherwise render obvious these corresponding features of claim 24 for reasons similar to those
`
`discussed above with respect to claim 23, and as such, claim 24 is patentable over Hsieh.
`
`I.
`
`Conclusion
`
`In view of the foregoing amendments and remarks, Applicant respectfully submits that
`
`claims 23 and 24 are clearly in condition for allowance. An early notice thereof is earnestly
`
`solicited.
`
`

`

`If, after reviewing this Amendment, the Examinerbelieves that there are any issues
`
`remaining which must be resolved before the application can be passedto issue, it is respectfully
`
`requested that the Examiner contact the undersigned by telephonein order to resolve such issues.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Stephen Kopchik/
`2023.04.05 18:39:40 -04'00'
`
`Stephen W. Kopchik
`Registration No. 61,215
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK,L.L.P.
`1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 500
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`Telephone (202) 721-8200
`Facsimile (202) 721-8250
`April 6, 2023
`
`The Director is hereby authorized to charge any fees which may be required, or credit any overpayment
`to Deposit Account No. 23-0975.
`
`