Unrrep States Patent AND TRADEMARK OFFICE TASTE RININT OF COMRIERCE Dr Inet EENRISOONER LOR SERS ‘OTe aT KENNETH A. MCCLURE, MARCONI TAN 1717 MCKINNEY AVENUE, STE 1050 DALLAS, TX 75202 TEITRGOOTTRUST 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Unrrep States PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE “Commissioner for Patents Unted States Patent and Trademark Offco .0, Box 1450. ‘Alexandra, VA 22313-1450 vw 90.907 DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER (THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS) WILMERHALE/ DC 1875 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., NW WASHINGTON, DC 20006 EX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/014,637 PATENT UNDER REEXAMINATION 9743086. ART UNIT 3992, Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark Office in the above identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550().. ‘Where this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be acknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)). PTOL-465 (Rev.07-04)Control No. Patent Under Reexamination 901014,637 9743086 Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination amar A Unit RA AIT Stas STEPHEN J RALIS 3992 No = The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address ~ 1. @ Responsive to the communication(s) fled on 23 December 2020, GA deciaration(sVaffidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) wasiwere filed on b.O This action is made FINAL. 2 statement under 37 CFR 1.530 has not been received from the patent owner. {A shortened statutory period for response to this action is set to expire 2 month(s) from the mailing date of ths letter. Failure to respond within the period for response will result in termination of the proceeding and issuance of an ex parte reexamination Certificate in accordance with this action. 37 CFR 1.550(d). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY 37 CFR 1.850(c). If the period for response specified above is less than thirty (30) days, a response within the statutory minimum of tht (30) days. will be considered timely Part| THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT(S) ARE PART OF THIS ACTION: 1. O Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PTO-892, 3.0 Interview Summary, PTO-474, 2. C Information Disclosure Statement, PTO/SB/O8. alee Part ll SUMMARY OF ACTION are subject to reexamination. Claims _are not subject to reexamination. Claims __have been canceled inthe present reexamination proceeding. Claims _are patentable andlor confirmed. Claims 1-11 are rejected Claims ___are objected to. The drawings, fled on ‘The proposed drawing correction, fled on_has been (7a) approved (7b) 1 disapproved. ‘Acknowledgment is made of the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(4) or (0. a) ZAI b) () Somet c) CINone of the certified copies have 1.2) been received. ta tb. 2 Claims 4 acceptable. Booogoogag 2.1 not been received. 3 ©) been fied in Application No, 13/881,927 4G] been fed in reexamination ControlNo, 5 C] been received by the Intemational Bureau in PCT application No. * See the attached detaled Office action for alist ofthe certified coples not received. 9. C1 Since the proceeding appears to be in condition for issuance of an ex parte reexamination certificate except for formal ‘matters, prosecution as to the merits is closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 4530.6. 213, 10. © Other: ce: Requester (if thd party requester) ‘Te Patan ara Oe PTOL-496 (Rev. 08-19) Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination Partof Paper No, 2021010810 25 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 2 Art Unit: 3992 DETAILED ACTION 1. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status. 4 IL, Pertinent Prosecution History 4 IL. Priority. 5 IV References Cited in RP Request 5 V. Issues Raised in the Request. 6 VL. Claim Interpretation 7 A, Imerpretation of Original Claims 7 B._ Lexicographie Definitions 7 C35 USC. § 112.6" Paragraph 8 (1) Funetional Phrase ~ “Circuitry I” 10 (2) Functional Phrase ~ “Circuitry II” 4 (3) Functional Phrase ~ “Circuitry III” 2 VIL. Claim Rejections 25 A, Issue 1 (Based on SNO 1 Zhou'815 and Smith) 26 (J) Claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 8-11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhou '8/5 in view of Smith. 26 (2) Claim(s) 2 and 7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhou'815 in view of Smith as applied to claims 1, 3-6 and 8-11 above, and in further view of Zhang. 43 (3) Claim 11 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhow’815 in view of Smith as applied to claims 1, 3-6 and 8-11 above, and in further view of Zhang and Lu. 44 B. Issue 2 (Based on SNQ 2 ~ Zhang and Smith) 46 (J) Claim(s) 1-11 ate rejected under pre-ATA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Smith. 46 C. Issue 3 (Based on SNOQ 2 ~ Zhang, JCTVC-B205 and Smith) 61 (1) Claim(s) 1-11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of JCTVC-B205 and Smith 61 D. Issue 4 (Based on SNQ 3 ~ Lu and Smith) 7 (1) Claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 8-11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Smith. 7 Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010815 20 30 35 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 3 Art Unit: 3992 (2) Claim(s) 2 and 7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Luvin view of Smith as applied to claims 1, 3-6 and 8-1 above, and in further view of Zhang. .92 E. Issue 5 (Based on SNQ 3 — Lu, JCTVC-B205 and Smith) Ls) (U)— Claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 8-11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lu in view of JCTVC-B205 and Smith. 93 (2) Claim(s) 2 and 7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Luin view of JCTVC-B205 and Smith as applied to claims 1, 3-6 and 8-11 above, and in further view of Zhang. 109 VII. Cumulative, l10 LX. Conelusion ui Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010820 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 4 Art Unit: 3992 I. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present reexamination is being conducted under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions 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 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 Il. Pertinent Prosecution History On 23 December 2020, a third party requester (“EP Requester”) filed an ex parte ination control number 90/014,637 reexamination request (“EP Request") in the reexar proceedings (“14637 Proceeding”) for claims 1-11 of United States Patent Number 9,743,086 (086 Patent”). In the “O86 Patent, claims 1, 6 and 11 are independent claims; claims 2-5 are dependent on claim 1; and claims 7-10 are dependent on claim 6 On January 4, 2021, Patent Owner telephonically waived their right to file a Patent Owner Statement pursuant to 37 CFR 1.530 (See interview summary dated January 6, 2021) On January 21, 2021, the Office mailed an Order granting the ex parte reexamination of the ‘O86 Patent (2021 Order”) in the ‘14637 Proceedings. In particular, the Office ordered reexamination of claims 1-11 of the 086 Patent (“Reexamined Claims) Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page Art Unit: 3992 HL. Priority The “086 Patent issued on 22 August 2017, from U.S. Application No. 14/868,916 (“916 Application”) filed on 29 September 2015, The 916 Application is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 14/474,918 (“918 Application”) filed on 02 September 2014, now U.S. Patent No, 9,185,367 (*°367 Patent”), which is a continuation of U.S. Application No, 13/881,927 ($927 Application”) filed as a 371 of International Application No, PCT/JP/073657 on 14 October 2011, now U.S. Patent No. 8,891,887 (“’887 Patent”). The ‘927 Application claims forei n priority to Japanese Application 2010-275116 (“116 JP Application”) filed on 09 December 2010, and Japanese Application 201 1-049992 (“*992 JP Application”) filed on 08 March 2011 Thus, the Examiner concludes that for reexamination purposes the instant “O86 Patent qualifies for an effective filing date of 14 October 2011 and a foreign priority date of 09 December 2010, IV. References Cited in RP Request A total of seven references, in certain combinations, have been asserted in the EP Request as providing teachings relevant to the claims of the ‘086 Patent. The proposed references which make up the combinations are as follows: ‘* US. Publication No. 2012/0140815 to Zhou ("Zhou’815 ") - NEW, ‘© US. Provisional Application No. 61/418,537 to Zhou ("Prov Zhou’537") ~ NEW. © Smith et al,, “A Stay Guide for Digital Processing,” Second Edition, Scientific Publishers (1997) (“Smith”)- NEW. Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 20210108Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 6 Art Unit: 3992 ‘© US. Patent No, 8,326,068 to Zhang et al. ("Zhang ")— NEW." ‘* US. Publication No. 2006/0159165 to Lu ef al. ("Lu") ~ NEW. ‘* US. Patent No. 5,524,645 to Stephanou ("Stephanou") ~ NEW. * “Test Model under Construction,” Draft 000, Document JCTVC-B205, Joint 5 Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WGI1 1, 2nd Meeting: Geneva, CH, 21-28 July, 2010 (“JCTVC-B205") — OLD © Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”) - OLD. 10 V, Issues Raised in the Request A total of six references have been asserted in the Request as providing teachings relevant to the claim of the ‘903 patent. In view of the 2021 Order, six references raised a substantial new question of patentability. The issues raised are as follows. Issue | Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-11 in view of Zhou’815 and Smith, Is Claims 2 and 7 in view of Zhou’815, Smith and Zhang, and Claim 11 in view of Zhou’815, Smith, Zhang and Lu Issue 2, Claims 1-11 in view of Zhang and Smith Issue 3 Claims 1-11 in view of Zhang, JCTVC-B205 and Smith Issue 4, Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-11 in view of Lu and Smith; 20 Claims 2 and 7 in view of Lu, Smith and Zhang; and Issue 5 Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-11 in view of Lu, JCTVC-B205 and Smith, " Zhang was provided before the Orfice in the "660 IPR Proceedings of the family "077 Patent, However, Zhang has not been before the Office in prosecution of the “O86 Patent Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 20210108Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 7 Art Unit: 3992 Claims 2 and 7 in view of Lu, JCTVC-B205, Smith and Zhang; and VI. Claim Interpretation A. Interpretation of Original Claims 5 With respect to the interpretation of claim terms of patents, MPEP 2258(G) states, G. Claim Interpretation and Treatment: Original patent claims will be examined only on the basis of prior art patents or printed publications applied under the appropriate parts of 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. See MPEP § 2217. During reexamination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent 10 with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims (In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Ina reexamination proceeding involving claims of an expired patent, claim construction pursuant to the principle set forth by the court in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 Fed. Cir. 2005) (words of a Is claim "are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning" as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention) should be applied since the expired claims are not subject to amendment. The statutory presumption of validity, 35 U.S.C. 282, has no application in reexamination (Jn re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 225 USPQ I (Fed. Cir. 1985)) 20 (Emphasis in original) Accordingly, the claims herein will be interpreted in accordance with the decision of in re Yamamoto, since the patent term has not expired. 25 B _Lexicographic Definitions A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP § 2111.01(1V). After carefull review of the original specification, the prosect mn history, and unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiner, the Examiner finds that he is unable to Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 20 25 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 8 Art Unit: 3992 locate any lexicographic definitions (either express or implied) with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Because the Examiner is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision, the Examiner concludes that Applicant is not his/her own lexicographer. See MPEP §2111.01 IV. § 112 6" Paragraph A second exception to giving words in the claims their ordinary and customary meaning is when a claimed phrase is interpreted in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 6" paragraph. See MPEP § 2181 ef seq. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (©) Element in Chaim for a Combination. ~ An element ina claim fora combination may’be expressed asa means or sep for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, oF 2618 ‘in support thereof, and such claim shal be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or sels described inthe specification and equivalents thereof, The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element ina claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be constmued fo cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked, Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010820 25 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 9 Art Unit: 3992 As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”, and (©) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(0) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 USCC. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step") are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-ATA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action, Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 20210108Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 10 Art Unit: 3992 This ‘14637 Proceeding includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and 5 the genetic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are “circuitry” in claims 1-5 Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(8) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and 10 equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) 15 present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, (1) Functional Phrase — “Circuitry I” The Examiner finds that claim 1 expressly recites 20 Circuitry configured to decode encoded data of image data to generate quantized transform coefficient data [emphasis added] “Functional Phrase 1” or “FP1” — From claim 1, ‘086 Patent. Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page II Art Unit: 3992 To invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112.6" paragraph, a claimed phrase must meet the three (3) prong analysis as set forth in MPEP § 2181 1 i 3-Prong Analysis: Prong (A) FP1 meets invocation prong (A) because "means .. for" type language is recited, The Examiner first finds that “circuitry” is a generic placeholder or nonce term equivalent to “means” because the term “circuitry” does not convey any particular structure. The Examiner further notes that the specification of the ‘O86 Patent does not define or otherwise use the term “circuitry” and thus the specification of the ‘086 Patent does not impart or disclose any structure for the phrase. Additionally, the Examiner has reviewed the prosecution history and the relevant prior art of record herein and find that “circuitry” as used in the claims does not provide an art-recognized structure to perform the claimed function. Rather more than simple circuitry would be required to perform the function recited in FP1 Accordingly, the Examiner finds nothing in the specification, prosecution history or the prior art to construe “circuitry ...” in FP as the name of a sufficiently definite structure for performing the functions recited in FP1 so as to take the overall claim limitation out of the ambit of §112(6!" 4). See Williamson v. Citrix Online, L.C., 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1112 (Fed. Cir 2015). In light of the above, the Examiner concludes that the term “circuitry ...” is a generic placeholder having no specific structure associated therewith. Because “circuitry ...” is merely a generic placeholder having no specific structure associated therewith, the Examiner concludes that FP1 meets invocation Prong (A). Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 20210108Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 12 Art Unit: 3992 Prong (B) i 3-Prong Analysis: Based upon a review of FP1, the Examiner finds that claimed function is: [Decoding] encoded data of image data to generate quantized transform 5 coefficient data - “Function of Functional Phrase 1” or “FFP1.” Because FP! recites the above recited function, the Examiner concludes that FP1 meets 10 Invocation Prong (B). 3-Prong Analysis: Prong (C) Based upon a review of the entire FP1, the Examiner concludes that FP1 does not contain sufficient structure for performing the entire claimed function of FP1. In fact, the Examiner 15 finds that the Funetional Phrase 1 recites very litle structure (if any) for performing the claimed function Because the Functional Phrase 1 does contain insufficient structure for performing the entire claimed functions, the Examiner concludes that the FP1 meets Invocation Prong (C), In conclusion, because FP1 meets the three prong analysis set forth in MPEP §2181 I, 20 the Examiner concludes that Functional Phrase 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. §112, 6th paragraph. iv. Corresponding structure for Functional Phrase #1 Once a claimed phrase invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112 6" paragraph, the next step is to determine the corresponding structure. (MPEP § 2181 II). Although not necessary, the Examiners have reviewed the rest of claim I and the entire claim does not contain sufficient structure for performing the functions as set forth within the Functional Phrase. Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 13, Art Unit: 3992 The Examiner has again carefully reviewed the original disclosure to determine the corresponding structure for FPI. In reviewing the original disclosure, the Examiner finds that the “086 Patent discloses FIG. 8 is a block diagram showing an example of a configuration of am image decoding device 60 according to an embodiment. With reference to FIG, 8, the image decoding device 60 includes an accumulation buffer 61, a lossless decoding section 62, an inverse quantization and inverse orthogonal transformation section 63, an addition section 65, a deblocking filter 66, a reordering buffer 67, a D/A (Digital to Analogue) conversion section 68, a frame memory 69, selectors 70 and 71, an intra prediction section 80, and a motion compensation section 90. (086 Patent at c.15, II.20-30; emphasis added). In addition, the *086 Patent discloses ‘The lossless decoding section 62 decodes an encoded stream supplied from the storage buffer 61 according to the encoding system used for the encoding. The lossless decoding section 62 decodes information multiplexed in the header area of encoded streams. The information multiplexed in the header area of encoded streams may include the basic matrix information and the difference matrix information 10 generate the above-described quantization matrix and information about intra prediction and inter prediction in the block header. The lossless decoding section 62 supplies the inverse quantization and inverse orthogonal transformation section 63 with information to generate quantized data and a quantization matrix after decoding. (Id, at ¢.15, 1133-45, emphasis added), emphasis added). In addition, the ‘086 Patent discloses the image decoding device either being a decoder 904/947; an image processing section 927 of a mobile phone 920; an image processing section 964 an image capturing device 960 that is control by a processor/CPU according to instructions in memory. (“086 Patent at ¢.25, II. 45-50; €26, 1137-39; ¢.28, I1.13-15, 22. 5; €.29, 1121-22, 50-52; ¢.30, 1].33-37; €.31, 1117-20; see Figures 15-18) Thus, in light of the portions of the “O86 Patent cited above, the Examiner concludes the corresponding structures for performing the FFP 1 as simply a decoder performing lossless decoding; or an image processing system/device performing lossless decoding Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 20210108Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 14 Art Unit: 3992 2) Functional Phrase — “Circuitry 11” The Examiner finds that claim 1 expressly recites Circuitry configured to ... inversely quantize the quantized transform. 5 coefficient data for the image data using a 32x32 quantization matrix, the 32x32 quantization matrix set by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in an 8x8. quantization matrix [emphasis added]. 10 and claim S expressly recites: Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 20210108Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 15 Art Unit: 3992 wherein the circuitry is configured to inversely quantize the quantized transform coefficient data for the image data using the 32x32 quantization matrix (QM1) set by performing the nearest neighboring process on the elements in the 8x8 quantization matrix (QM2): 5 9 op Meg Coo AEH _AID_—AID MO G2 AM A29 vu GI AH Axe Ow 9) 99 ep AD AAW Aye a0 Aan Ay +++ th Aho Axe Arn ee 99 Ay 19D Aho Aap Ay Dv HO Ay AG A ee 9 AEU_AID_ AID AHO Map Ay M9 vs HY GO AI Am es os BEL A MH My MAE ME AY we CH OH By OH dog og gy uO yg aE Gy ak wee ML ME log os GAL A MHS MIE GI aL ve AL AN ME AH ome ox Moe Ge GU AN Ie rE Gn aA OL GL HE Ae Go on 12 12 12 M12 A Or M2 xz aa O72 og oq O42 12 ay M12 Maz Or Oe an 2 a2 ag ai 12 aia a2 a es dor ay ay a4? AK an an ar an ay an an an an age ey Oey ayy Or ys an an a an er oy a7 ayy ar ayy sie Gr ay are ayy Aa G9 G20 M9 Aue AS AGO BH 4 Gn AK OH A As Be M4 Me 412 am AQ ae As B62 My —~=ErFrr—s Ae a Mae 5 an O84 AoL Oo as tis mas ass 4s O55 es as Bee Mie M26 M36 ay ASG ae OG ae 17 29 sy Bar Oss ee Orr [emphasis added]; 10 “Functional Phrase 2” or “FP2” — From claims | and 5, “086 Patent. Ex parte Reexamination — Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 16 Art Unit: 3992 To invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112.6" paragraph, a claimed phrase must meet the three (3) prong analysis as set forth in MPEP § 2181 1 i 3-Prong Analysis: Prong (A) FP2 meets invocation prong (A) because "means... for" type language is recited, The Examiner first finds that “circuitry” is a generic placeholder or nonce term equivalent to “means” because the term “circuitry” does not convey any particular structure. The Examiner further notes that the specification of the ‘O86 Patent does not define or otherwise use the term “circuitry” and thus the specification of the ‘086 Patent does not impart or disclose any structure for the phrase. Additionally, the Examiner has reviewed the prosecution history and the relevant prior art of record herein and find that “circuitry” as used in the claims does not provide an art-recognized structure to perform the claimed function. Rather more than simple circuitry would be required to perform the function recited in FP2. Accordingly, the Examiner finds nothing in the specification, prosecution history or the prior art to construe “circuitry ...” in FP2 as the name of a sufficiently definite structure for performing the functions recited in FP2 so as to take the overall claim limitation out of the ambit of §112(6!" 4). See Williamson v. Citrix Online, L.C., 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1112 (Fed. Cir 2015). In light of the above, the Examiner concludes that the term “circuitry ...” is a generic placeholder having no specific structure associated therewith. Because “circuitry ...” is merely a generic placeholder having no specific structure associated therewith, the Examiner concludes that FP2 meets invocation Prong (A). Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 25 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 17 Art Unit: 3992 Prong (B) i 3-Prong Analysis: Based upon a review of FP1, the Examiner finds that claimed function is: [1Jnversely quantiz[ing] the quantized transform coefficient data for the image data using a 32x32 quantization matrix, the 32x32 quantization matrix set by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in an 8x8 quantization matr - “Function of Functional Phrase 2” or “FFP2.” Because FP2 recites the above recited function, the Examiner concludes that FP2 meets Invocation Prong (B). 3-Prong Analysis: Prong (C) Based upon a review of the entire FP2, the Examiner concludes that FP1 does not contain sufficient structure for performing the entire claimed function of FP2.> In fact, the Examiner finds that the Functional Phrase 2 recites very little structure (if any) for performing the claimed function. Because the Functional Phrase 2 does contain insufficient structure for performing the entire claimed functions, the Examiner concludes that the FP2 meets Invocation Prong (C) In conclusion, because FP2 meets the three prong analysis set forth in MPEP §2181 L., the Examiner concludes that Functional Phrase 2 invokes 35 U.S.C, §112, 6th paragraph, iv. Corresponding structure for Functional Phrase #2 Once a claimed phrase invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112 6" paragraph, the next step is to ® Although not necessary, the Examiners have reviewed the rest of claim 1 and the entire claim does not contain sufficient structure for performing the functions as set forth within the Functional Phrase. Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 18 Art Unit: 3992 determine the corresponding structure. (MPEP § 2181 II). ‘The Examiner has again carefully reviewed the original disclosure to determine the corresponding structure for FP2. In reviewing the original disclosure, the Examiner finds that the “086 Patent discloses: FIG, 8 is a block diagram showing an example of a configuration of av image decoding device 60 according to an embodiment. With reference to FIG. 8, the image decoding device 60 includes an accumulation buffer 61, a lossless decoding section 62, an inverse quantization and inverse orthogonal transformation section 63, an addition section 65, a deblocking filter 66, a reordering buffer 67, a D/A. (Digital to Analogue) conversion section 68, a frame memory 69, selectors 70 and 71, an intra prediction section 80, and a motion compensation section 90. * FIG.8 | a te | I 1 - J oemooens |__, Reo pa pow ogi Paes fo-s | | | anion J bacmemned mater LES rr SENOS (086 Patent at c.15, II.20-30, emphasis added; see annotated Figure 8 above); ‘The inverse quantization and inverse orthogonal transformation section 6; performs inverse quantization and inverse orthogonal transformation on quantized data supplied from the lossless decoding section 62 to generate prediction error data (Id. at ¢.15, 1150-54; emphasis added; see annotated Figure 8 above) As shown in FIG. 9, the inverse quantization and inverse orthogonal transformation section 63 includes a matrix generation section 210, a selection section 230, an inverse quamtization section 240, and an inverse orthogonal transformation section 250. Ex parte Reexamination — Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 20210108Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 19 Art Unit: 3992 ease (Jd. at .16, I.63-67; emphasis added; see annotated Figure 9 above); 5 ‘The matric generation section 210 generates a quantization matrix correspondins {0 transform units representing one or more sizes from a quantization matrix corresponding to a transform unit representing one size for each encoded stream sequence and picture. A quantization matrix may be generated typically based on the minimum of transform unit sizes. According to the embodiment, the matrix 10 ceneration section 210 generates 8X8, 16% 16, and 3232 quantization matrices rom a 4X4 quantization matrix as the minimum size using the difference matrix information about larger sizes. (Ud. at ¢.17, 112-12; emphasis added; see annotated Figure 9 above), 15 ‘The inverse quantization section 240 uses a quantization matrie corresponding to the transform unit selected by the selection section 230 10 inversely quantize transform coefficient data quantized during image encoding, Quantization ‘matrices used for the inverse quantization comain a matric generated by the matrix generation section 210. For example, the selection section 230 may select 20 an 8*8, 16*16, or 3232 transform unit. In such a case, the selected transform unit may correspond to the quantization matrix the matrix generation section 210 generates from a 44 quantization matrix. (Ud, at ¢.17, 1126-35, emphasis added; see annotated Figure 9 above); Ex parte Reexamination — Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 25 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 20 Art Unit: 3992 FIG. 10 is a block diagram illustrating amore detailed configuration of the matrix generation section 210 of the inverse quantization and inverse orthogonal transformation section 63 illustrated in FIG. 9. With reference to FIG. 10, the ‘matrix generation section 210 includes a base matrix acquisition section 212, a difference acquisition section 214, a prediction section 216, a reconstruction section 218, and a quantization matrix buffer 220. reat ase mar pane cuanoinar aate | (Id. at ¢.17, 1153-59; emphasis added; see annotated Figure 10 above); and ‘The prediction section 216 follows the prediction expression used for the image encoding such as prediction expression (2) ot (3) described above to calculate ‘8x8 predicted matrie PSL? having a larger size from the base matrix such as 4 ‘quantization matrix SL1 according to the embodiment supplied from the base ‘matrix acquisition section 212, The prediction section 216 uses the calculated 88 predicted matrix PSL2 to calculate 1616 predicted matrix PSL3 from quantization matrix SL2 reconstructed by the reconstruction section 218, Further, the prediction section 216 uses the calculated 16*16 predicted matrix PSL3 to calculate 32*32 predicted matrix PSL4 from quantization matrix SL3 reconstructed by the reconstruction section 218, (Id. at c.17, I26-35; emphasis added; see annotated Figure 10 above). The ‘086 Patent discloses the inverse quantization and inverse orthogonal transformation section 63 including an inverse quantization section 240 and a matrix generation section 210. The “O86 Patent discloses the inverse quantization section 240 inversely quantizing the transform Ex parte Reexamination — Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 20210108Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 21 Art Unit: 3992 coefficients according to a matrix generated by the prediction section 216 of the matrix: ‘generation section 210 according to a certain “prediction expression”, The Examiner finds that the ‘086 Patent discloses the prediction expression (2) stating, (1) Prediction Section ‘The prediction section 152 acquires a set of quantization matrices stored in the quantization matrix buffer 140 and predicts a second quantization matrix having a larger size front a first quantization matrix contained in the acquired set, For example, 4x4 quantization matrix SL1 is defined as follows. (ah 1) (Gaon a» a0 a ee aie Ay i ass dex ats as as For example, 8x8 predicted matrix PSI2 can be prodicted by the prediction section 152 from quantization matrix SL and calculated as follows according & prediction, expression 2) below. — Mah 2) Ex parte Reexamination — Non Final Office Action Partof Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 22 Art Unit: 3992 (‘086 Patent at c.19, II.1-39). In addition, the ‘086 Patent discloses the image decoding device either being a decoder 904/947; an image processing section 927 of a mobile phone 920; an image processing section 964 an image capturing device 960 that is control by a processor/CPU according to instructions in memory. (“086 Patent at ¢.25, I. 45-50; €26, I1.37-39; ¢.28, IL 13-15, 22-25; ¢,29, II.21-22, 50-52; ¢.30, II.33-37; ¢.31, I1.17-20; see Figures 15-18) Thus, in light of the portions of the “O86 Patent cited above, the Examiner concludes the corresponding structures for performing the FFP2 as simply a decoder or an image processing system/device performing inverse quantization on a newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix in which the newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix has been created by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements (3) Functional Phrase ~“ ceuitry 111” ‘The Examiner finds that claim 4 expressly recites wherein the circuitry [emphasis added], configured to store the 8x8 quantization matrix and claim 6 expressly recites wherein the circuitry is configured to set the 32x32 quantization matrix [emphasis added}; “Functional Phrase 3” or “FP3” — From claims 4 and 6, 086 Patent. To invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112.6" paragraph, a claimed phrase must meet the three (3) prong analysis as set forth in MPEP § 2181 I. i, 3-Prong Analysis: Prong (A) Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 23, Art Unit: 3992 FP3 meets invocation prong (A) because "means ... for" type language is recited. The Examiner first finds that “circuitry” is a generic placeholder or nonce term equivalent to “means” because the term “circuitry” does not convey any particular structure, The Examiner further notes that the specification of the “O86 Patent does not define or otherwise use the term “circuitry” and thus the specification of the *086 Patent does not impart or disclose any structure for the phrase. Additionally, the Examiner has reviewed the prosecution history and the relevant prior art of record herein and find that “circuitry” as used in the claims does not provide an art-recognized structure to perform the claimed function, Rather more than simple circuitry would be required to perform the function recited in FP3 Accordingly, the Examiner finds nothing in the specification, prosecution history or the prior art to construe “circuitry ...” in FP3 as the name of a sufficiently definite structure for performing the functions recited in FP3 so as to take the overall claim limitation out of the ambit of §112(6! 4), See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LC. 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1112 (Fed. Cir 2015), In light of the above, the Examiner concludes that the term “circuitry ...” is a generic placeholder having no specific structure associated therewith, Because “circuitry ...” is merely a generic placeholder having no specific structure associated therewith, the Examiner concludes that FP3 meets invocation Prong (A). |. 3-Prong Analysis: Prong (B) Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 20210108Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 24 Art Unit: 3992 Based upon a review of FP3, the Examiner finds that claimed functi yn matrix, Is for[ing] the 8x8 quantizs - “Function of Functional Phrase 3” or “FFP3.” Because FP3 recites the above recited function, the Examiner concludes that FP3 meets Invocation Prong (B). 3-Prong Analysis: Prong (C) 10 Based upon a review of the entire FP3, the Examiner concludes that FP3 does not contain sufficient structure for performing the entire claimed function of FP3.* In fact, the Examiner finds that the Functional Phrase 3 recites very little structure (if any) for performing the claimed function. Because the Functional Phrase 3 does contain insufficient structure for performing the 15 entire claimed functions, the Examiner concludes that the FP3 meets Invocation Prong (C). In conclusion, because FP3 meets the three prong analysis set forth in MPEP §2181 I., the Examiner concludes that Functional Phrase 3 invokes 35 U.S.C. §112, 6th paragraph iv. Corresponding structure for Functional Phrase #3 20 Once a claimed phrase invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112.6" paragraph, the next step is to determine the corresponding structure. (MPEP § 2181 II). ‘The Examiner has again carefully reviewed the original disclosure to determine the corresponding structure for FP3. In reviewing the original disclosure, the Examiner finds that the “086 Patent discloses * Although not necessary, the Examiners have reviewed the rest of claim 1 and the entire claim does not contain sulficient structure for performing the functions as set forth within the Funetional Phrase Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 30 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 25, Art Unit: 3992 The base matrix acquisition section 212 acquires basic matrix information supplied from the lossless decoding section 62. As described above, the basi matrix information according to the embodiment specifies 4><4 quantization matrix SL1 as the minimum size. The base matrix acquisition section 212 allows the quantization matrix buffer 220 to store 4*4 quantization matrix SLI specified in the basic matrix information. (086 Patent at ¢.17, II.60-67; emphasis added). In addition, the ‘086 Patent discloses The quantization matrix buffer 220 temporarily stores quantization matrix SL1 specified by the base matrix acquisition section 212 and quantization matrices SL2, SL3, and SL4 reconstructed by the reconstruction section 218. Quantization matrices SL1, SL2, SL3, and SL4 stored in the quantization matrix buffer 220 are used for the inverse quantization section 240 to inversely quantize the quantized transform coefficient data closes (Id. at c.15, 1133-45; emphasis added); emphasis added). In addition, the ‘086 Patent dit the image decoding device either being a decoder 904/947; an image processing section 927 of a mobile phone 920; an image processing section 964 an image capturing device 960 that is control by a processor/CPU according to instructions in memory. (‘086 Patent at ¢.25, I1.45-50, €26,11.37-39; €.28, II 13-15, 22-25; ¢.29, I1.21-22, 50-52; €.30, 11.33-37; ¢.31,I1.17-20; see Figures 15-18) Thus, in light of the portions of the “O86 Patent cited above, the Examiner concludes the corresponding structures for performing the FFP3 as simply a decoder or an image processing system comprising some type of memory storing a 8x8 quantization matrix and setting/storing a 32x32 quantization matrix after nearest-neighbor predicated/duplication processi VIL. Claim Rejections Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010820 25 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 26 Art Unit: 3992 The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, i the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious atthe time the invention was made (oa person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made, ‘The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviou ness under pre~ AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. s at issue, 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the cli Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness, A. Issue I (Based on SNQ 1 ~ Zhou’815 and Smith) @ Claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 8-11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhou’815* in view of Smith. With respect to the limitations of claims 1, 6 and L1, Zhou’ 15 discloses a. [a]n image processing device comp: b. [a]n image proc [a] non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which when executed cause a computer to perform a method, the method comprising: jing method compri The Examiner finds that only the portions of Zhow’815 that find disclosure support in Prov Zhou ‘537 are entitled to the filing date of Prov Zhou 537 (ie., 01 December 2010), See MPEP § 221.05, Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 27 Art Unit: 3992 ‘The Examiner finds that Zhow'815 sscloses an image processing system and method. (Prov Zhou'537 at Title; and pp.1-4, 9-10). The Examiner finds that the image processing system of Zhou'8 15 would have memory storing instructions for at least the encoding, transmitting/receiving, and decoding of image data or Zhow’8/5 would not be enabling for providing compressed quantization matrix information (i.e., lossless) within the picture header of information exchanged between image processing systems/devices. (Prov Zhou’537 at Title; and p.1 at 1*-2" 4; see Figures 1, 2). d. circuitry configured to: decode encoded data of image data to generate quantized transform coefficient data; and ¢. decoding encoded data of image data to generate quantized transform coefficient data; and As set forth supra, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrase | does invoke 35 U.S.C. is a decoder §112, 6th paragraph. (See § VI.C.(1) supra). The Examiner construes ‘circuitry or an image processing system/device performing lossless decoding In this light, the Examiner finds that Zhou 8/5 discloses providing compressed quantization matrix information (Z.¢., lossless) within the picture header of information exchanged between image processing systems/devices. (Prov Zhou’537 at Title, and p.1 at 1-2" 4%; see Figures 1, 2). The Examiner finds that Zhou 8/5 discloses the receiving portion of the image processing system having a correlating decoder that must inherently utilize lossless decoding in order to attain the quantization matrix information. (Zhow'8/5 at pp. 6, last ; 9-10). Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010815 20 30 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 28 Art Unit: 3992 f ‘cuitry configured to:... inversely quantize the quantized transform coefficient data for the image data using a 32x32 quantization matrix, the 32x32 quantization matrix set by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in an 8x8 quantization matri g. inversely quantizing, via circuitry of an image processing device, the quantized transform coefficient data for the image data using a 32x32 quantization matrix, the 32x32 quantization matrix set by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in an 8x8 quantization matrix. h. inversely quantizing the quantized transform coefficient data for the image data using a 32x32 quantization matrix, the 32x32 quantization matrix set by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in an 8x8 quantization matrix. As set forth supra, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrase 2 does invoke 35 U.S.C. §112, 6th paragraph, (See § VI.C.(2) supra). The Examiner construes ‘circuitry ...” as a decoder or an image processing system/device performing inverse quantization on a newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix in which the newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix has been created by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements. In this light, the Examiner finds that Zhow’8 5 discloses the image processing system decoding the quantization transform data matrices included in the picture header of a High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) picture/image. (Prov Zhou'537 at Title; and p.1 at 18-2 4 see Figures 1, 2; pp. 6, last {; 9-10). The Examiner finds that HEVC providing 4x4, 8x8, 16x16 and 32x32 quantization transform matrix data information for performing inverse quantization (Prov Zhou'537 at Title; pp.1-4; and p.6, last $). The Examiner finds that Zhow'815 discloses a further mechanism to compress the quantization matrix including “transmit{ting] just quantization matrices for small size transforms, quantization matrices for large block transforms can be derived (¢.g., upsampling, interpolation, prediction or any forms of combinations) from matrices of small block sizes. (Prov Zhou'537 at Title; and p 9, last p.10) While Zhou '8/5 discloses all the limitations as set forth above, Zhow'8/5 is silent to the Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 29 Art Unit: 3992 circuitry explicitly setting the 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix; and the setting (e., she upsampling and/or imerpolation) of the 32x32 transform quantization matrix being accomplished by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in the smaller 8x8 quantization matrix. However, Zhow'S15 teaches and suggests setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix. Zhow'8/5, for example, teaches the previous standard being limited to 4x4 and 8x8 quantization block transform matrices. (Prov Zhow'537 at p.l, 29), Zhow’$15 further teaches that HEVC processing can now include, not only 4x4 and 8x8 quantization block transform matrices, but can now include 16x16 and 32x32 quantization block transform matrices. (Jd. at pp.1-4). The Examiner finds that Zhou 8/5 further teaches methods of compressing the quantization matrix which includes “transmit{ting] just quantization matrices for small size transforms, quantization matrices for large block transforms can be derived (¢.g., upsampling, interpolation, prediction or any forms of combinations) from matrices of small block sizes.” (Prov Zhou’537 at Title, and p 9, last — p.10), The Examiner finds that Zhou'815 explicitly teaches “transmit[ting] just quantization block transform matrices for small sizes (emphasis on plurality, ic., 4x4 and/or 8x8) and deriving “quantization matrices for large block transforms (emphasis again on plurality, i.e., 16x16 and/or 32x32). The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate specifically setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix as described in Zhow'815 in the image processing system of Zhou’815. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate specifically setting Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 30 Art Unit: 3992 a 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix, since it provides a further mechanism to reduce the number of bits required for transmitting quantization transform matrix data. (Prov Zhow'537 at Title; p.1, I"; p-4, Ist Y; and p 9, last). In other words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HEVC processing that compresses quantization matrix and reduces the overhead for HEVC image processing, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method. (Id) Furthermore, the Examiner finds that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (ie., “Obvious to try”), would lead to anticipated success. (See MPEP § 2143.1E). That is, since Zhow’8/5 explicitly teaches the utiliz n of transmitting small size quantization transforms matrices of 4x4 or 8x8 and the deriving of larger quantization transforms matrices of 16x16 or 32x32 on the decoding end to reduce processing overhead, Zhow’8/5 teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions (:e., transmit a small 8x8 quantization block transform matrix and derive a larger 32x32 quantization block transform therefrom) with a reasonable expectation of success (i.e., Obvious to try) As set forth supra, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrase 2 does invoke 35 U.S.C. §112, 6th paragraph, (See § VI.C.(2) supra). The Examiner construes a ‘circuitry ...” as a decoder or an image processing system/device performing inverse quantization on a newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix in which the newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix has been created by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements. Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 31 Art Unit: 3992 From this perspective, the Examiner finds that se ing (i.c., the upsampling and or interpolation) of the 32x32 transform quantization matrix being accomplished by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in the smaller 8x8 quantization matrix is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Smith for example, specifically teaches conventional image processing interpolation methods to increase the size of an image, one of which being a “pixel replication or zero-order interpolation.” (Jd. Smith at §§ 8.6 — 8.6.1, also see EP Request at §§ IX.A.2, IX.A 4.¢ (emphasis on pp.47-51)). The Examiner finds that Smith teaches the pixels being replicated from an NxN image to a 2Nx2N to create the large interpolated image. (/d.). The Examiner finds that Smith teaches this procedure as being identical to upsampling by a factor of two. (Id; emphasis at § 8.6.1, 2"). Thus, the Examiner concludes that zero-order interpolation or replication is equivalent to the predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements. (See example in § 86.1 at top of p.417 of Smith The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate specifically setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix by a predicated duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements as described in Smith in the image processing system of Zhow'815. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate specifically setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix bya predicated duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, since it provides a mechanism to.utilize the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an image processing data set. (Id. at § 8.6.1; also see EP Request at §§ IX.A.3; and IX.A 4.c (emphasis on pp.47-51)). In other Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 25 30 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 32 Art Unit: 3992 words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HEVC processing that decreases required complex processing, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method. (Id) In addition, this combination of references satisfies at least rationale C identified by the Supreme Court in KSR: "Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way." (See MPEP 2143.) The elements of the Graham factual inquiry for supporting a finding of obviousness based on this rationale are provided below (1) A finding that the prior art (Zhou ’8/5) contained a “base” device (an image processing system) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” for including setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 (2) A finding that the prior art (Smith) contained a "comparable" device (digital processing image enhancement system) that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention, ‘e. the Smith pixel replication or zero-order interpolation performs a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 in order to carry out, in addition to the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, a new function of utilizing the most simplest and conventional method of increasing a digital image processing data set (3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique in the same way to the “base” device (the Zhow’8/5 image processing system) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, because Zhou’8/5 indicates that utilizing interpolation in the decoder on the receiving end can be used to derive a larger quantization transform block from a smaller transmitted/received quantization transform block and Smith teaches a manner for improving this, the result would be predictable. In other words, the Smith implementation or providing of pixel replication or zero- order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set to a larger digital image data set that satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 proves that the implementation is both successful and entirely predictable. In Zhou’8/5, the image processing system modified according to Smith would be capable of incorporating the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an image processing data set (i.e., pixel replication or zero-order interpolation) of the Smith digital processing image enhancement system including the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set to a larger digital image data set that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 33, Art Unit: 3992 in addition to higher end interpolation techniques, as evidenced by the success in the Smith digital processing image enhancement system. (4) Whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. There are not additional findings necessary, here. In that regard, the Examiner asserts the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. That is, the manner of, enhancing a particular device (providing of pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set to a larger digital image data set that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1) was made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in Smith. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known “improvement” technique in the same manner to the prior art an image processing system of Zhow’8/5 and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely, one skilled in the art would have readily recognized that a pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set to a larger digital image data set that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 in the image processing system of Zhow’8/5 would positively provide a means to carry out, in addition to the duplication of neares neighboring matrices elements, a new function of utilizing the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an digital image processing data set, since such functionality is taught to be highly desirable by Smith, as set forth supra. Thus, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 34 Art Unit: 3992 the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a “base” device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that if the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, then using the technique would not have been obvious. (KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396). If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. With respect to the limitations of claims 3 and 8, Zhow'8/5 and Smith teaches and for renders obvious wherein the circuitry is configured to store the 8x8 quantization matrix. j- further comprising storing the 8x8 quantization matrix. As set forth supra, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrase 3 does invoke 35 U.S.C. §112, 6th paragraph, (See § VILC.(3) supra). The Examiner construes ‘circuitry ...” as a decoder or an image processing system comprising some type of memory storing an 8x8 quantization matrix. ht, the Examiner finds that Zhow’8 15 discloses providing compressed quantization matrix information (ie., lossless) within the picture header of information exchanged between image processing systems/devices. (Prov Zhou'537 at Title, and p.1 at 18-2" ‘4; see Figures 1, 2). The Examiner finds that Zhou 8/5 discloses the receiving portion of the image processing system having a correlating decoder that must inherently utilize lossless decoding in order to att in the quantization matrix information, (Zhow’8/5 at pp. 6, last §, 9-10) Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 35, Art Unit: 3992 Specifically, the Examiner finds that Zhou 8/5 discloses the image processing system decoding the quantization transform data matrices included in the picture header of a High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) picture/image. (Prov Zhou'537 at Title; and p.1 at 15-2" 49, see Figures 1, 2: pp. 6, last §, 9-10). The Examiner finds that Zhou'S/5 discloses a further mechanism to compress the quantization matrix including “transmit{ting] just quantization matrices for small size transforms, quantization matrices for large block transforms can be derived (¢.g., upsampling, interpolation, prediction or any forms of combinations) from matrices of small block sizes.” (Prov Zhou’537 at Title; and p 9, last §— p.10). The Examiner finds that in order for larger quantization transform matrices (i.¢., 16x16 or 32x32) to be derived, the smaller 4x4 or 8x8 transform block matrices must be stored in memory in the decoder/image processing system. Thus, the Examiner concludes that Zhou ‘8/5 sufficiently satisfies circuitry being configured to store the 8x8 quantization matrix. To the degree a reviewing body finds that it is not inherent that Zhow’8/5 teaches “circuitry is configured to store the 8x8 quantization matrix” (emphasis added), the following alternative to this feature is provided as set forth below: ‘The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate a decoder or an image proces 1g system comprising some type of memory storing an 8x8 quantization matrix in the image processing system of Zhou’815 and Smith. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate a decoder or an image processing system comprising some type of memory storing an 8x8 quantization matrix, since it provides a mechanism to dynamically access the transmitted/received smaller quantization transforms for further processing, In other words, such a modification would have Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 Appli ation/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 36 Art Unit: 3992 provided a stabilized platform for HEVC processing that decreases the necessity to continually download data for processing, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method With respect to the limitations of claims 4 and 9, Zhou '8/5 and Smith teaches and for renders obvious kK wherein the circuitry is configured to inversely quantize the quantized transform coefficient data for the image data using the 32x32 quantiz: matrix (QM1) set by performing the nearest neighboring process on the elements in the 8x8 quantization matrix (QM2): wherein inversely quantizing includes inversely quantizing, via the circuitry, the quantized transform coefficient data for the image data using the 32x32 quantization matrix (QM1) set by performing the nearest neighboring process on the elements in the 8x8 quan yn matrix (QM2): Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 20210108Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Art Unit: 3992 errr eS Fey Ay Age Ao ye AIO BO Ale 43 Gy Shereeeess Ay Oyy Bee Ans Gy, yy Ay) Ay Ay Gy cee es goers ow[u cn anna acne pres be SSESSE2228 pupae apn peppbdibibebs ee see ees sa 08 a as SQeeenne oune|es a oo os oo mo ok se SEER EES SENSES CESSES ES a9 ay an an a6 ae oe a am om me om am a an, an, an Page 37 As set forth supra, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrase 2 does invoke 35 U.S.C. §112, 6th paragraph, (See § VIC.(2) supra). The Examiner construes ‘circuitry * asa decoder or an image processing system/device performing inverse quantization on a newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix in which the newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix has been created by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements As presented supra, the Examiner finds it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate “circuitry configured to Ex parte Reexamination — Non Final Office Action inversely quantize the quantized transform coefficient Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 38, Art Unit: 3992 data for the image data using a 32x32 quantization matrix, the 32x32 quantization matrix set by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in an 8x8 quantization matrix” as described by Zhou '8/5 and Smith (See §SVILA.(1).g-h supra) With respect to the matrices of QMI and QM2 above, the Examiner finds that Smith, for example, specifically teaches conventional image processing interpolation methods to increase the size of an image, one of which being a “pixel replication or zero-order interpolation,” (/d. Smith at §§ 8.6 ~ 8.6.1, also see EP Request at §§ IX.A.2, IX.A 4.¢ (emphasis on pp.47-51)). The Examiner finds that Smith teaches the pixels being replicated from an NxN image to a 2Nx2N to create the large interpolated image. (Id). The Examiner finds that Smith teaches this procedure as being identical to upsampling by a factor of two. (Id; emphasis at § 8.6.1, 24). The Examiner finds that the example of Smith specifically teaches a 2x2 digital data set being upsampled/replicated/zero-order interpolated to a 4x4. (Jd; also see EP Request at §§ IX.A 4.c (emphasis on pp.49-51); and IX.A.7 (emphasis on pp.53-55)).The Examiner finds that the Smith 22 . 2 ; 22 vin, Pil vimmi= NG 3 a4 upsampled/replicated/zero-order interpolated 4x4 replaces the ayo element of the 2x2 with a 2x2 array of ago elements. Thus, the Examiner concludes that zero-order interpolation or replication is equivalent to the predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements. (/d.) The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate specifically setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix, in the form of QMI, from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix, in Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 25 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 39 Art Unit: 3992 the form of QM2, by a predicated duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements as described in Smith in the image processing system of Zhow'815. ‘A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate specifically setting 32x32 transform quantization matrix, in the form of QMI1, from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix, in the form of QM2, Sy a predicated duplication of nearest-neighboring ‘matrices elements, since it provides a mechanism to utilize the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an image processing data set. (Id. at § 8.6.1; also see EP Request at §§ IX.A.3; and IX.A 4c (emphasis on pp.47-51)). In other words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HEVC processing that decreases required complex processing, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method. (/d.) In addi ‘ion, this combination of references sati fies at least rationale C identified by the Supreme Court in KSR: "Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way." (See MPEP 2143.) The elements of the Graham factual inquiry for supporting a finding of obviousness based on this rationale are provided below (1) A finding that the prior art (Zhow’8/5) contained a “base” device (an image processing system) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” for including setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix, in the form of QMI, from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix, in the form of QM2, by a predicated/duplication of nearest- neighboring matrices elements that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 (2) A finding that the prior art (Smith) contained a "comparable" device (digital processing image enhancement system) that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention, i.e. the Smith pixel replication or zero-order interpolation performs a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 in order to carry out, in addition to the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, a new function of utilizing the most simplest and conventional method of increasing a digital image processing data set (3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique in the same way to the “base” device (the Zhou ’8/5 image processing Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 30 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 40 Art Unit: 3992 system) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, because Zhou 8/5 indicates that utilizing interpolation in the decoder on the receiving end can be used to derive a larger quantization transform block, in the form of QM1, from a smaller transmitted/received quantization transform block, in the form of QM2, and Smith teaches a manner for improving this, the result would be predictable. In other words, the Smith implementation or providing of pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set, in the form of QM2, toa larger digital image data set, in the form of QML, that satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 proves that the implementation is both successful and entirely predictable. In Zhow'8/5, the image processing system modified according to Smith would be capable of incorporating the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an image processing data set (.e., pixel replication or zero-order interpolation) of the Smith digital processing image enhancement system including the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set, in the form of QM2, to a larger digital image data set, in the form of QMI, that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1, in addition to higher end interpolation techniques, as evidenced by the success in the Smith digital processing image enhancement system (4) Whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. There are not additional findings necessary, here In that regard, the Examiner asserts the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, That is, the manner of enhancing a particular de’ ¢ (providing of pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set, in the form of QM2, to a larger digital image data set, in the form of QM1, that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1) was made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in Smith. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known “improvement” technique in the same manner to the prior art an image processing system of Zhow'8/5 and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely, one skilled in the art would have readily recognized that a pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller tal image data set, in the form of QM2, to a larger digital image data set, in the form of QMI1, that sufficiently Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 41 Art Unit: 3992 satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 in the image processing system of Zhou'8/5 would positively provide a means to carry out, in addition to the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, a new function of utilizing the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an digital image processing data set, since such functionality is taught to be highly desirable by Smith, as set forth supra, Thus, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a “base” device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that if the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, then using the technique would not have been obvious. (KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396). If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. With respect to the limitations of claims 5 and 10, Zhou'815 and § renders obvious m, wherein the circuitry is configured to set the 32x32 quantization matrix. n, further comprising setting, via the circuitry, the 32x32 quantization matrix. As set forth supra, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrase 3 does invoke 35 U.S.C. ‘$112, 6th paragraph, (See § VILC.(3) supra). The Examiner construes ‘circuitry ...’ as a decoder or an image processing system comprising some type of memory setting/storing an 8x8 Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 42 Art Unit: 3992 quantization matrix In this light, the Examiner finds that Zhou’8 15 closes providing compressed quantization matrix information (i-e., lossless) within the picture header of information exchanged between image processing systems/devices. (Prov Zhou’537 at Title; and p.1 at 18-2 ‘1; see Figures 1, 2). The Examiner finds that Zhou 8/5 discloses the receiving portion of the image proc stem having a correlating decoder that must inherently utilize lossles ing s decoding in order to attain the quantization matrix information. (Prov Zhou ’537 at pp. 6, last §; 9-10), Specifically, the Examiner finds that Zhou 815 discloses the image processing system decoding the quantization transform data matrices included in the picture header of a High Efficiency Video C ing (HEVC) picturefimage. (Prov Zhow'537 at Title; and p.1 at 1-2" 99; see Figures 1, 2; pp. 6, last {; 9-10). The Examiner finds that Zhow'8/5 discloses a further mechanism to compress the quantization matrix including “transmit{ting] just quantization matrices for small size transforms, quantization matrices for large block transforms can be derived (e.g., upsampling, interpolation, prediction or any forms of combinations) from matrices of small block sizes.” (Prov Zhow’537 at Title, and p 9, last { ~ p.10). The Examiner finds that in order for larger quantization transform matrices (-e., 16x16 or 32x32) that are derived from the smaller 4x4 or 8x8 transform block matrices to be utilized in the HEVC processing, the larger quantization transform matrices (i.¢., 16x16 or 32x32) must be stored in memory in the decoder/image processing system. Thus, the Examiner concludes that Zhou 8/5 and Smith sufficiently satisfies circuitry being configured to set and store the 32x32 quantization matrix. To the degree a reviewing body finds that itis not inherent that Zhow’8/5 teaches ircuitry is configured to set the 32x32 quantization matrix” (emphasis added), the following alternative to this feature is provided as set forth below: Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 43, Art Unit: 3992 ‘The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate a decoder or an image proce: 1g system comprising some type of memory setting and storing a 32x32 quantization matrix in the image 5 and Smith. processing system of Zhou 8 A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate a decoder or an image processing system comprising some type of memory setting and storing a 32x32 quantization matrix, since it provides a mechanism to dynamically access the derived larger quantization transforms for further processing, In other words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HEVC processing that decreases the necessity to continually download data for processing, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method Q Claim(s) 2 and 7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhou’815° in view of Smith as applied to claims 1, 3-6 and 8-11 above, and in further view of Zhang. With respect to the limitations of claims 2 and 7, and o. wherein the 8x8 quantization matrix is a default quantization matrix. Zhou'815 and Smith discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the 8x8 quantization matrix being a default quantization matrix. However, an image processing sy’ rem and method including an 8x8 quantization matrix being a default quantization matrix is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Zhang, for ©The Examiner finds that only the portions of Zhow’815 that find disclosure support in Prov Zhou ‘537 are entitled to the filing date of Prov Zhou 537 (ie., 01 December 2010), See MPEP § 221.05, Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 44 Art Unit: 3992 example, teaches an 8x8 quantization matrix as being a default quantiz 3, 112-3 5, 11,40-44: see Figure 4). The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system and method of Zhou'815 and Smith to include an 8x8 quantization matrix being a default quantization matrix as described in Zhang. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate an 8x8 quantization matrix as being a default quantization matrix, since it provides a mechanism to ensure that the image processing device operates and maintains desired exiting behavior in calculating larger quantization matrices, In other words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HEVC processing that will not provide initial undesired results, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method. a Claim 11 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhou’815” in view of Smith as applied to claims 1, 3-6 and 8-11 above, and in further view of Zhang and Lu With respect to the limitations of claim 11, and p. [a] non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which when executed cause a computer to perform a method To the degree a reviewing body finds that it is not inherent that Zhow'S/5 and Smith teaches “a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which when executed The Examiner finds that only the portions of Zhow’815 that find disclosure support in Prov Zhou ‘537 are entitled to the filing date of Prov Zhou 537 (ie., 01 December 2010), See MPEP § 221.05, Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 45, Art Unit: 3992 cause a computer to perform a method” (emphasis added), the following alternative to this As set forth above, the Examiner finds that Zhow'8/5 and Smith teaches and/or renders obvious an image processing system that performs the method steps of claim 11. (See § VILA.(1) supra) While Zhow'8 5 and Smith discloses all the limitations as set forth above, Zhou '815 and Smith is silent to the method being instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium which may be executed by a computer. However, a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which when executed causes a computer to perform a method is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Zhang, for example, teaches a method for encoding and decoding quantization matrices that may be a computer product/storage medium including instructions which can be utilized to program a computer to perform a process/method. (Zhang at ¢.11, I1.35-46; ¢.11, 1.61 ~¢.12, 1.2). The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system and method of Zhow'8 15 and Smith to include the method being instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium which may be executed by a computer as described in Zhang. ‘A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the method being instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium which may be executed by a computer, since it provides a mechanism to ensure that it is possible to easily perform the processing in an independent computer system. (L1 at § 0114). In other words, such a modification would have provided a versatile and portable platform for HEVC processing, thereby increasing the operational convenience of the image processing method Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010815 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 46 Art Unit: 3992 B. Issue 2 (Based on SNQ 2- Zhang and Smith) w Claim(s) 1-11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C, 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Smith. With respect to the limitations of claims 1, 6 and 11, Zhang discloses a. [a]n image processing device comprising: b. [a] image processing method comprising: ¢. [a] non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which when executed cause a computer to perform a method, the method comprising: The Examiner finds that Zhang discloses an image processing system and method. (Zhang at Title, ¢.1,11.29-52; ¢.6, I141-42, 46-49; ¢.11, 138-46, see Figures 1, 13). The Examiner finds that the image processing system of Zhang can be implemented as a computer product which may be a storage medium including instructions which can be used to program a computer to perform the image processing process. (Id. at c.11, 1.61 ~ ¢.12, 1.2). d. circuitry configured to: decode encoded data of image data to generate quantized transform coefficient data; and ¢. decoding encoded data of image data to generate quantized transform coefficient data; and As set forth supra, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrase 1 does invoke 35 U.S.C. §112, 6th paragraph, (See § VIC.(1) supra). The Examiner construes ‘circuitry ...” as a decoder or an image processing system/device performing lossless decoding In this light, the Examiner finds that Zhang discloses an encoder 62 providing frequency domain coefficients from a forward Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT), T, to a quantizer, Q, to produce quantized DCT coefficients, J, via an input generated quant ation matrix, L, which is in Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 47 Art Unit: 3992 return encoded by entropy encoder, C. (Zhang at c.1, 11.29-52; ¢.6, II.41-42, 46-49). The Examiner finds that itis known in the art that entropy encoding is lossless data compression. The Examiner finds that Zhang teaches the utilization of a decoder 64 utilizing the inverse C1, Q" and T+ blocks that decode the encoded signal produced by the encoder 62. (Id.). The Examiner finds that the output of the entropy decoder inverse Ct would be the quantized DCT transform coefficients data. (Id. at c.1, II 44-52), f. circuitry configured to:... inversely quantize the quantized transform coefficient data for the image data using a 32x32 quantization matrix, the 32x32 quantization matrix set by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in an 8x8 quantization matrix. wersely quantizing, via circuitry of an image processing device, the quantized transform coefficient data for the image data using a 32x32 quantization matrix, the 32x32 quantization matrix set by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in an 8x8 quantization matrix. h. inversely quantizing the quantized transform coefficient data for the image data using a 32x32 quantization matrix, the 32x32 quantization matrix set by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in an 8x8 quantization matrix. As set forth supra, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrase 2 does invoke 35 U.S.C. $112, 6th paragraph, (See § VLC.(2) supra). The Examiner construes ‘circuitry ...’ as a decoder or an image processing system/device performing inverse quantization on a newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix in which the newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix has been created by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements. In this light, the Examiner finds that Zhang discloses the utilization of a decoder 64 utilizing the inverse C+, Q*! and T+ blocks that decode the encoded signal produced by the encoder 62, (/d.) The Examiner finds that the output of the inverse quantizer Q™ would be the reconstructed DCT transform coefficients data. (Zhang at c.1, l1.59-63). The Examiner finds that Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 48 Art Unit: 3992 Zhang discloses finding the optimized fewest parameters for a quantization matrix to solve constraints including target bitrate/bitsize, memory bandwidth and the like. (Id. at ¢.4, 110-21 5, -66; ¢.6, 14-11), The Examiner finds that Zhang discloses encoding and decoding of the quantization matrix being with respect to the then conventional H.264/AVC coding standard. (Id. at ¢.1, 1141-43; 3, 11.28-30; ¢.6,11.7-11). The Examiner finds that Zhang discloses “generatfing] one or more other sizes of quantization matrices using the optimized quantitation matrix as a starting point.” (Jd. at ¢.6, 141-43), As an example thereof, the Examiner finds that Zhang discloses the H.264/AVC coding standard being based upon the generation of an optimized a 4x4 quantization matrix, based upon four optimized parameters, and utilizing interpolation between the coefficients in the 4x4 quantization matrix to derive an 8x8 quantization matrix. (Id. at ¢.5, 11.40-43; ¢.6, II.4-7, 46-49), The Examiner finds that Zhang discloses this approaches as reducin parameters in half without any effect on the modeling performance. (Id. at ¢.6, I-11). While Zhang discloses all the limitations as set forth above, Zhang is silent to the circuitry explicitly setting the 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix instead of setting an 8x8 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 4x4 transform quantization matrix; and the setting (e., she ypsampling and/or interpolation) of the 32x32 transform quantization matrix being accomplished by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in the smaller 8x8 quantization matrix. The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate specifically setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix instead of setting an 8x8 Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 49 Art Unit: 3992 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 4x4 transform quantization matrix as described in Zhang in the image processing system of Zhang. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate specifically setting 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix instead of setting an 8x8 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 4x4 transform quantization matrix, since Zhang explicitly teaches “generat[ing] one or more other sizes of quantization matrices using the optimized quantitation matrix as a starting point” and this approach reduces parameters in half without any effect on the modeling performance. (Id. at ¢.6, II5-11, 41-43, 46- 49)%.In other words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HD processing that provides improved coding efficiency of high resolution video, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method. (Id. at ¢.6, I]S-11). Furthermore, the Examiner finds that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (i.., “Obvious to try”), would lead to anticipated success. (See MPEP § 2143.LE). That is, since Zhang explicitly teaches the utilization of transmitting small size quantization transforms matrices and the deriving of larger quantization transforms matrices from the small s ize quantization transforms matrices on the decoding end to reduce parameters in half without any effect on the modeling performance, Zhang teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions (i¢., transmit a small 8x8 quantization block transform matrix and derive a larger 32x32 quantization block transform therefrom) with a reasonable expectation of success (ie., Obvious to try). The Examiner finds that one of ordinary’ skill in the art would have understood Zhang to disclose not only the use ofa 4x4 transform quantization matrix 10 generate an 8x8 transform quantization matrix, but also the applicability of its techniques o “one or more other sizes of quantization matrices,” namely to an 8x8 transform quantization matrix to generate a 32x32 transform quantization matrix Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 50 Art Unit: 3992 As set forth supra, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrase 2 does invoke 35 U.S.C. §112, 6th paragraph, (See § VIC (2) supra), The Examiner construes a “circuitry ...’ as a decoder or an image processing system/device performing inverse quantization on a newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix in which the newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix has been created by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements. From this perspective, the Examiner finds that setting (c¢., the upsampling and/or interpolation) of the 32x32 transform quantization matrix being accomplished by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in the smaller 8x8 quantization matrix is known in the art, The Examiner finds that Smith, ion methods to for example, specifically teaches conventional image processing interpol: increase the size of an image, one of which being a “pixel replication or zero-order interpolation.” (Jd. Smith at §§ 8.6 8.6.1; also see EP Request at §§ IX.A.2, IX.A 4.c (emphasis on pp.47-51)). The Examiner finds that Smith teaches the pixels being replicated from an NxN image to a 2Nx2N to create the large interpolated image. (/d.). The Examiner finds that ‘Smith teaches this procedure as being identical to upsampling by a factor of two. (/d; emphasis at §8.6.1, 24), Thus, the Examiner concludes that zero-order interpolation or replication is equivalent to the predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements. (See example § 8.6.1 at top of p.417 of Smith) The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate specifically setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix by a Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 202101085 10 15 20 25 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 51 Art Unit: 3992 predicated duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements as describe Smith in the image processing system of Zhang. ‘A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate specifically setting 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix by a predicated duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, since it provides a mechanism to utilize the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an image processing data set. (id. at § 8.6.1; also see EP Request at §§ IX.A.3; and IX.A 4.c (emphasis on pp.47-51)). In other words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HD processing that decreases required complex processing, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method. (/d.) In addi ‘ion, this combination of references sati fies at least rationale C identified by the Supreme Court in KSR: "Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way." (See MPEP 2143.) The elements of the Graham factual inquiry for supporting a finding of obviousness based on this rationale are provided below (1) A finding that the prior art (Zhang) contained a “base” device (an image processing system) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” for including setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 (2) A finding that the prior art (Smith) contained a "comparable" device (digital processing image enhancement system) that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention, i.e. the Smith pixel replication or zero-order interpolation performs a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 in order to carry out, in addition to the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, a new function of utilizing the most simplest and conventional method of increasing a digital image processing data set (3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique in the same way to the “base” device (the Zhang image processing Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 30 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 52 Art Unit: 3992 system) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, because Zhang indicates that utilizing interpolation in the decoder on the receiving end can be used to derive a larger quantization transform block from a smaller transmitted/received quantization transform block and Smith teaches a manner for improving this, the result would be predictable. In other words, the Smith implementation or providing of pixel replication or zero- order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set to a larger digital image data set that satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 proves that the implementation is both successful and entirely predictable. In Zhang, the image processing system modified according to Smith would be capable of incorporating the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an image processing data set (.e., pixel replication or zero-order interpolation) of the Smith digital processing image enhancement system including the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set to a larger digital image data set that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1, in addition to higher end interpolation techniques, as evidenced by the success in the Smith digital processing image enhancement system. (4) Whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. There are not additional findings necessary, here In that regard, the Examiner asserts the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, That is, the manner of enhancing a particular device (providing of pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that, results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set to a larger digital image data set that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1) was made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in Smith, Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known “improvement” technique in the same manner to the prior art an image processing system of Zhang and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely, one skilled in the art would have readily recognized that a pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set to a larger digital image data set that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 in the image processing system of Zhang would positively provide a Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 53, Art Unit: 3992 ‘means to carry out, in addition to the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, a new funetion of utilizing the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an digital image processing data set, since such functionality is taught to be highly desirable by Smith, as set forth supra. Thus, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a “base” device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that if the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, then using the technique would not have been obvious. (KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396). If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. With respect to the limitations of claims 2 and 7, Zhang and Smith teaches and /or renders obvious i, wherein the 8x8 quantiz: a default quantization matrix. ‘The Examiner finds that Zhang di loses an 8x8 quantization matrix as being a default quantization matrix. (Zhang at ¢.3, I_2-3: ¢.5, lI-40-44; see Figure 4) Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010820 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 54 Art Unit: 3992 With respect to the limitations of claims 3 and 8, Zhang and Smith teaches and /or renders obvious wherein the circuitry is configured to store the 8x8 quan k. further comprising storing the 8x8 quantization matrix. As set forth supra, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrase 3 does invoke 35 U.S.C. ‘$112, 6th paragraph, (See § VIC.(3) supra). The Examiner construes ‘circuitry ...’ as a decoder or an image processing system comprising some type of memory storing an 8x8 quantization matrix, In this light, the Examiner finds that Zhang discloses an encoding system 200 comprising a digital computer 202, memory 204, electronic files 206 and software programs 208. (Zhang at €.11, II.35-55). The Examiner finds that Zhang discloses the electronic files 206 holding quantization matrices and the memory 204 storing software programs 208 executable by the computer 202 to encode..., decode and update the quantization matrices. (Id.). Thus, the Examiner concludes that Zhang sufficiently satisfies circuitry being configured to store the 8x8 quantization matrix. With respect to the limitations of claims 4 and 9, Zhang and Smith teaches and /or renders obvious 1. wherein the circuitry is configured to inversely quantize the quantized transform coefficient data for the image data using the 32x32 quantization matrix (QM1) set by performing the nearest neighboring process on the elements in the 8x8 quantization matrix (QM2): m, wherein inversely quant \cludes inversely quantizing, via the circuitry, the quantized transform coefficient data for the image data using the 32x32 quantization matrix (QM1) set by performing the nearest neighboring process on the elements in the 8x8 quantization matrix (QM2): Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 20210108Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 55 Art Unit: 3992 Ay 9) eq AM MIE BIO AID BIE BA MW G30 +. BH MI ao am 5p, A) AH66 Ao ALY BJO AD AE Bay MH Ay vv AM OH AV Am oq, Hy Ge Ay BH AIO AID AIO aN Gry Ay. Am OH Ho AM fp A ee Amy GLY AIO AIH IG M29 GH M20. 9 OH ME AM ee oy ot os oe GY GIL AH Ay ME GR AA vs AL GN aE rE ay Oey ing og YALL ML ME AE HL aes an Te me a 02 ea a Bon fag G2 tan aa any og ea og on 2 IE aE G2 Aaa Ger Mae ara O22 toy a2 oa on 12 IZ IE BIZ AD Ga M2 om ay yp oy or YT GT IY AT aT BY aN AA OD aay aan or oer a AT MT BI ay GY AY aN a a aN op op an gt Aon gr eter yy IF MT Ay GQ Gy o_O Or Gy ay 9p Ag ay ay Ayr My Ay ay Gy ay. ON Ay a ay as ID AH AG May Asa ae Hr ay a Mae Hy Ase ASL ey fer G2 Ay Ay ey Bsr hee OR ous ay 9 5 a 055 40) ay Ta Are Ass Ass O54 oH ry | Gos MIs Gas ass as O55 Mes Ors 95 Ie Ore ASG Axe O55 Me Org an a7 Ga By Aa 52 Oey Oo OM2= As set forth supra, the Examiner finds that Funetional Phrase 2 does invoke 35 U.S.C. §112, 6th paragraph, (See § VILC.(2) supra). The Examiner construes ‘circuitry ...” as a decoder or an image processing system/device performing inverse quantization on a newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix in which the newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix has been created by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements As presented supra, the Examiner finds it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate “circuitry configured to: inversely quantize the quantized transform coefficient Ex parte Reexamination — Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 56 Art Unit: 3992 data for the image data using a 32x32 quantization matrix, the 32x32 quantization matrix set by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in an 8x8 quantization matrix” as described by Zhang and Smith (See § VILB.(1).g supra). With respect to the matrices of QM1 and QM2 above, the Examiner finds that Smith, for example, specifically teaches conventional image processing interpolation methods to increase the size of an image, one of which being a “pixel replication or zero-order interpolation,” (/d. Smith at §§ 8.6 ~ 8.6.1; also see EP Request at §§ IX.A.2, IX.A 4.c (emphasis on pp.47-51)). The Examiner finds that Siith teaches the pixels being replicated from an NxN image to a 2Nx2N to create the large interpolated image. (Id). The Examiner finds that Smith teaches this procedure as being identical to upsampling by a factor of two. (Id; emphasis at § 8.6.1, 24). The Examiner finds that the example of Smith specifically teaches a 2x2 digital data set being upsampled/replicated/zero-order interpolated to a 4x4. (Jd; also see EP Request at §§ IX.A 4.c (emphasis on pp.49-51); and IX.A.7 (emphasis on pp.53-55)).The Examiner finds that the Smith 22 . 2 ; 22 vin, Pil vimmi= NG 3 a4 upsampled/replicated/zero-order interpolated 4x4 replaces the ayo element of the 2x2 with a 2x2 array of ago elements. Thus, the Examiner concludes that zero-order interpolation or replication is equivalent to the predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements. (/d.) The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate specifically setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix, in the form of QMI, from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix, in Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 25 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 57 Art Unit: 3992 the form of QM2, by a predicated duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements as described in Smith in the image processing system of Zhang. ‘A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate specifically setting 32x32 transform quantization matrix, in the form of QMI1, from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix, in the form of QM2, Sy a predicated duplication of nearest-neighboring ‘matrices elements, since it provides a mechanism to utilize the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an image processing data set. (Id. at § 8.6.1; also see EP Request at §§ IX.A.3; and IX.A 4c (emphasis on pp.47-51)). In other words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HD processing that decreases required complex processing, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method. (/d.) In addi ‘ion, this combination of references sati fies at least rationale C identified by the Supreme Court in KSR: "Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way." (See MPEP 2143.) The elements of the Graham factual inquiry for supporting a finding of obviousness based on this rationale are provided below (1) A finding that the prior art (Zhang) contained a “base” device (an image processing system) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” for including setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix, in the form of QMI, from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix, in the form of QM2, by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 (2) A finding that the prior art (Smith) contained a "comparable" device (digital processing image enhancement system) that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention, i.e. the Smith pixel replication or zero-order interpolation performs a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 in order to carry out, in addition to the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, a new function of utilizing the most simplest and conventional method of increasing a digital image processing data set (3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique in the same way to the “base” device (the Zhang image processing Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 30 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 58 Art Unit: 3992 system) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, because Zhang indicates that utilizing interpolation in the decoder on the receiving end can be used to derive a larger quantization transform block, in the form of QM1, from a smaller transmitted/received quantization transform block, in the form of QM2, and Smith teaches a manner for improving this, the result would be predictable. In other words, the Smith implementation or providing of pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set, in the form of QM2, toa larger digital image data set, in the form of QML, that satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 proves that the implementation is both successful and entirely predictable. In Zhang 5, the image processing system modified according to Smith would be capable of incorporating the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an image processing data set (.e., pixel replication or zero-order interpolation) of the Smith digital processing image enhancement system including the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set, in the form of QM2, to a larger digital image data set, in the form of QMI, that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1, in addition to higher end interpolation techniques, as evidenced by the success in the Smith digital processing image enhancement system (4) Whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. There are not additional findings necessary, here In that regard, the Examiner asserts the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, That is, the manner of enhancing a particular de’ ¢ (providing of pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set, in the form of QM2, to a larger digital image data set, in the form of QM1, that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1) was made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in Smith. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known “improvement” technique in the same manner to the prior art an image processing system of Zhang and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely, one skilled in the art would have readily recognized that a pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller tal image data set, in the form of QM2, to a larger digital image data set, in the form of QMI1, that sufficiently Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 59 Art Unit: 3992 satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 in the image processing system of Zhang would positively provide a means to carry out, in addition to the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, a new function of utilizing the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an digital image processing data set, since such functionality is taught to be highly desirable by Smith, as set forth supra, Thus, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a “base” device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that if the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, then using the technique would not have been obvious. (KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396). If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. With respect to the limitations of claims 5 and 10, Zhang and Smith teaches and /or renders obvious n, wherein the circuitry is configured to set the 32x32 quantization matrix. ©. further comprising setting, via the circuitry, the 32x32 quantization matrix. As set forth supra, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrase 3 does invoke 35 U.S.C. ‘$112, 6th paragraph, (See § VILC.(3) supra). The Examiner construes ‘circuitry ...’ as a decoder or an image processing system comprising some type of memory setting/storing an 8x8 Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 60 Art Unit: 3992 quantization matrix. In this light, In this light, the Examiner finds that Zhang discloses an encoding system 200 comprising a digital computer 202, memory 204, electronic files 206 and software programs 208. (Zhang at ¢.11, I 35-55). The Examiner finds that Zhang discloses the electronic files 206 holding quantization matrices and the memory 204 storing software programs 208 executable by the computer 202 to encode..., decode and update the quantization matrices. (Id.). Thus, the Examiner concludes that Zhang and Smith sufficiently satisfies circuitry being configured to set and store the 32x32 quantization matrix. To the degree a reviewing body finds that itis not inherent that Zhou 8/5 teaches “circuitry is configured to set the 32x32 quantization matrix” (emphasis added), the following alternative to this Feature is provided as set forth below ‘The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate a decoder or an image processing system comprising some type of memory setting and storing a 32x32 quantization matrix in the image processing system of Zhang and Smith. ‘A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate a decoder or an image processing system comprising some type of memory setting and storing a 32x32 quantization matrix, since it provides a mechanism to dynamically access the derived larger quantization transforms for further processing, In other words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HD processing that decreases the necessity to continually download data for processing, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010815 20 25 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 61 Art Unit: 3992 C. Issue 3 (Based on SNQ 2 ~ Zhang, JCTVC-B205 and Smith) o Claim(s) 1-11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of JCTVC-B205 and Smith. To the degree a reviewing body finds that Zhang does not teach, suggest and/or render obvious “se#ling a 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix” (emphasis added), the following alternative to this feature is provided as set forth below: With respect to the limitations of claims 1, 6 and 11, Zhang discloses a. [aln image processing device compris b. [a]n image processing method comprisin; ¢. [a] non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which when executed cause a computer to perform a method, the method comprising: The Examiner finds that Zhang discloses an image processing system and method (Zhang at Title; ¢.1, 11.29-52; ¢.6, 141-42, 46-49; c.11, II 35-46; see Figures 1, 13). The Examiner finds that the image processing system of Zhang can be implemented as a computer product which may be a storage medium including instructions which can be used to program a computer to perform the image processing process. (Id. at ¢.11, 1.61 ~ ¢.12, 1.2). d. circuitry configured to: decode encoded data of image data to generate quantized transform coefficient data; and e. decoding encoded data of image data to generate quanti: coefficient data; and d transform As set forth supra, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrase | does invoke 35 U.S.C. §112, 6th paragraph, (See § VILC.(1) supra). The Examiner construes ‘circuitry ...’ as a decoder or an image processing system/device performing lossless decoding. Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 62 Art Unit: 3992 In this light, the Examiner finds that Zhang discloses an encoder 62 providing frequency domain coefficients from a forward Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT), T, to a qua er, Q, to produce quantized DCT coefficients, J, via an input generated quantization matrix, L, which is in retum encoded by entropy encoder, C. (Zhang at ¢.1,11.29-52; ¢.6, Il 41-42, 46-49). The Examiner finds that itis known in the art that entropy encoding is lossless data compression. The Examiner finds that Zhang teaches the utilization of a decoder 64 utilizing the inverse C4, Q* and T blocks that decode the encoded signal produced by the encoder 62. (Id.). The Examiner finds that the output of the entropy decoder inverse Ct would be the quantized DCT transform coefficients data. (Id. at ¢.1,II.44-52), f. circuitry configured to:... inversely quantize the quantized transform coefficient data for the image data using a 32x32 quantization matrix, the 32x32 quantization matrix set by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in an 8x8 quantization matri g. inversely quantizing, via circuitry of an image processing device, the quantized transform coefficient data for the image data using a 32x32 quantization matrix, the 32x32 quantization matrix set by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in an 8x8 quantization matrix. h, inversely quantizing the quantized transform coefficient data for the image data using a 32x32 quantization matrix, the 32x32 quantization matrix set by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in an 8x8 quantization matrix. As set forth supra, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrase 2 does invoke 35 U.S.C. §112, 6th paragraph, (See § VILC.(2) supra). The Examiner construes ‘circuitry ...’ as a decoder or an image processing system/device performing inverse quantization on a newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix in which the newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix has been created by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements. Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 63, Art Unit: 3992 In this light, the Examiner finds that Zhang discloses the utilization of a decoder 64 utilizing the inverse C+, Q* and T+ blocks that decode the encoded signal produced by the encoder 62, (/d.) The Examiner finds that the output of the inverse quantizer Q* would be the ner finds that reconstructed DCT transform coefficients data, (Zhang at ¢.1,lI,59-63). The Exar Zhang discloses finding the optimized fewest parameters for a quantization matrix to solve constraints including target bitrate/bitsize, memory bandwidth and the like. (Id. at ¢.4, 110-21 c.5, 1157-66; ¢.6, Il.4-11). The Examiner finds that Zhang discloses encoding and decoding of the quantization matrix being with respect to the then conventional H.264/AVC coding standard. (Jd. at c.1, Il.41-43, ¢.3, IL28-30; ¢.6, II.7-11). The Examiner finds that Zhang discloses the 1.264/AVC coding standard being based upon the generation of an optimized a 4x4 quantization matrix, based upon four optimized parameters, and utilizing interpolation between the coefficients in the 4x4 quantization matrix to derive an 8x8 quantization matrix. (Id. at ¢.5, 11.40- 43; €.6, 114-7, 46-49). The Examiner finds that Zhang discloses this approaches as reducing parameters in half without any effect on the modeling performance. (Id. at ¢.6, Il5-11). While Zhang discloses all the limitations as set forth above, Zhang is silent to the circuitry explicitly setting the 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix instead of setting an 8x8 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 4x4 transform quantization matrix; and the setting (e., she upsampling and/or interpolation) of the 32x32 transform quantization matrix being accomplished by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in the smaller 8x8 quantization matrix. However, JC7VC-B205 teaches and suggests setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix. JCTVC-B205, for example, teaches the Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 64 Art Unit: 3992 previous “AVC” standard being limited to 4x4 and 8x8 quantization block transform matrices. (ICTVC-B205 at p.94-95; p.136, § 10.1), JCTVC-B205 further teaches that HD processing can now include, not only 4x4 and 8x8 quantization block transform matrices, but can now include 16x16, 32x32 and 64x64 quantization block transform matrices. (Id. at p.136, § 10.1). JCIVC- B205 further teaches that the utilization of large transforms provides better energy consumption and reduced quantization error, resulting in smoother data. (Id) The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate specifically setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix instead of setting an 8x8 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 4x4 transform quantization matrix as described in JCTVC-B205 in the image processing system of Zhang. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate specifically setting 4 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix instead of setting an 8x8 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 4x4 transform quantization matrix, since it provides a mechanism of utilizing large transforms with better energy consumption and reduced quantization error characteristics. (Id.) In other words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HD processing that provides improved coding efficiency of high resolution video, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method. (/d.) Furthermore, the Examiner finds that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (i.¢., “Obvious to try”), would lead to anticipated success. (See MPEP § 2143.1.E). That is, since Zhang explicitly teaches the utilization of transmitting small size quantization transforms matrices of 4x4 and the deriving of Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010820 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 65, Art Unit: 3992 larger quantization transforms matrices of 8x8 on the decoding end to reduce parameters in half without any effect on the modeling performance; and JCTVC-B205 explicitly teaches the utilization of 32x32 quantization block transform matrices to provide better energy consumption VC-B205 teaches that and reduced quantization error, resulting in smoother data, Zhang and JC one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions (é., transmit a small 8x8 quantization block transform matrix and derive a larger 32x32 quantization block transform therefrom) with a reasonable expectation of success (i.e., Obvious to try). (See Declaration filed by Lina J. Karam on 23 December 2020 (“Karam Declaration”) at § 0120- 0121). As set forth supra, the Examiner finds that Funetional Phrase 2 does invoke 35 U.S.C. §112, 6th paragraph, (See § VI.C.(2) supra). The Examiner construes a “circuitry ...” as a decoder or an image processing system/device performing inverse quantization on a newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix in which the newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix has been created by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements. From this perspective, the Examiner finds that setting (ce., the upsampling and/or interpolation) of the 32x32 transform quantization matrix being accomplished by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in the smaller 8x8 quantization matrix is known in the art, The Examiner finds that Smith, for example, specifically teaches conventional image processing interpolation methods to increase the size of an image, one of which being a “pixel replication or zero-order interpolation.” (Id. Smith at §§ 8.6 — 8.6.1; also see EP Request at §§ IX.A.2, IX.A 4c Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 66 Art Unit: 3992 (emphasis on pp.47-51)). The Examiner finds that Smith teaches the pixels being replicated from an NxN image to a 2Nx2N to create the large interpolated image. (/d.). The Examiner finds that ‘Smith teaches this procedure as being identical to upsampling by a factor of two. (Jd; emphasis § 8.6.1, 2"). Thus, the Examiner concludes that zero-order interpolation or replicati equivalent to the predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, (See example in § 8.6.1 at top of p.417 of Smith) The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate specifically setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix by a wredicated duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements as described in Smith in the image processing system of Zhang and JCTVC-B205, A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate specifically setting 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix by a vredicated duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, since it provides a mechanism to utilize the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an image processing data set. Ud. at § 8.6.1; also see EP Request at §§ IX.A.3; and IX.A 4.¢ (emphasis on pp.47-51)). In other words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HD processing that decreases required complex processing, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method. (/d.) In addition, this combination of references satisfies at least rationale C identified by the Supreme Court in KR: "Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010820 40 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 67 Art Unit: 3992 products) in the same way." (See MPEP 2143.) The elements of the Graham factual inquiry for supporting a finding of obviousness based on this rationale are provided below (1) A finding that the prior art (Zhang and JCTVC-B205) contained a “base” device (an image processing system) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” for including setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 (2) A finding that the prior art (Smith) contained a "comparable" device (digital processing image enhancement system) that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention, i.e. the Smith pixel replication or zero-order interpolation performs a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 in order to carry out, in addition to the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, a new function of utilizing the most simplest and conventional method of increasing a digital image processing data set (3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique in the same way to the “base” device (the Zhang and JCTVC-B205 image processing system) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, because Zhang indicates that utilizing interpolation in the decoder on the receiving end can be used to derive a larger quantization transform block from a smaller transmitted/received quantization transform block and Smith teaches a manner for improving this, the result would be predictable. In other words, the Smith implementation or providing of pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set to a larger digital image data set that satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 proves that the implementation is both successful and entirely predictable, In Zhang and JCTVC-B205, the image processing system modified according to Smith would be capable of incorporating the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an image processing data set (i.e., pixel replication or zero-order interpolation) of the Smith digital processing image enhancement system including the duplication of nearest- neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set to a larger digital image data set that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1, in addition to higher end interpolation techniques, as evidenced by the success in the Smith digital processing image enhancement system. (4) Whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. There are not additional findings necessary, here In that regard, the Examiner asserts the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. That is, the manner of Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 68 Art Unit: 3992 enhancing a particular device (providing of pixel replication or zero-order terpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set to a larger digital image data set that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1) was made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in Smith, Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known “improvement” technique in the same manner to the prior art an image processing system of Zhang and JCTVC-B205 and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely, one skilled in the art would have readily recognized that a pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set to a larger digital image data set that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 in the image processing system of Zhang and JCTVC-B205 would positively provide a means to carry out, in addition to the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, a new function of utilizing the most simplest and. conventional method of increasing an digital image processing data set, since such functionality is taught to be highly desirable by Smith, as set forth supra. Thus, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or produets) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a “base” device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that if the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, then using the technique would not have been obvious. (KSR, 50 U.S. at Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010815 20 25 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 69 Art Unit: 3992 417, 82U ISPQ2d at 1396). If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. With respect to the limitations of claims 2 and 7, Zhang, JCTVC-B205 and Smith teaches and /or renders obvious i, wherein the 8x8 quantization matrix is a default quantization matrix, The Examiner finds that Zhang discloses an 8x8 quantization matrix as being a default quantization matrix. (Zhang at ¢.3, Il.2-3: ¢.5, 1140-44, see Figure 4) With respect to the limitations of claims 3 and 8, Zhang, JCTVC-B205 and Smith teaches and /or renders obvious J. wherein the circuitry is configured to store the 8x8 quan k, further comprising storing the 8x8 quantization matrix. As set forth supra, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrase 3 does invoke 35 U.S.C. $112, 6th paragraph, (See § VLC.(3) supra). The Examiner construes ‘circuitry ...” as a decoder or an image processing system comprising some type of memory storing an 8x8 quantization matrix. In this light, the Examiner finds that Zhang discloses an encoding system 200 comprising a digital computer 202, memory 204, electronic files 206 and software programs 208, (Zhang at €.11, 1135-55). The Examiner finds that Zhang discloses the electronic files 206 holding quantization matrices and the memory 204 storing software programs 208 executable by the computer 202 to encode...., decode and update the quantization matrices, (Id.). Thus, the Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 70 Art Unit: 3992 Examiner concludes that Zhang sufficiently satisfies circuitry being configured to store the 8x8 quantization matrix. With respect to the limitations of claims 4 and 9, Zhang, JCTVC-B205 and Smith teaches and /or renders obvious 1. wherein the circuitry is configured to inversely quantize the quantized transform coefficient data for the image data using the 32x32 quantization matrix (QM1) set by performing the nearest neighboring process on the elements in the 8x8 quantization matrix (QM2): m, wherein inversely quantizing includes inversely quantizing, via the circuitry, the quantized transform coefficient data for the image data using the 32x32 quantization matrix (QM1) set by performing the nearest neighboring process on the elements in the 8x8 quantization matrix (QM2): Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 20210108Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 71 Art Unit: 3992 Ay 9) eq AM MIE BIO AID BIE BA MW G30 +. BH MI ao am 5p, A) AH66 Ao ALY BJO AD AE Bay MH Ay vv AM OH AV Am oq, Hy Ge Ay BH AIO AID AIO aN Gry Ay. Am OH Ho AM fp A ee Amy GLY AIO AIH IG M29 GH M20. 9 OH ME AM ee oy ot os oe GY GIL AH Ay ME GR AA vs AL GN aE rE ay Oey ing og YALL ML ME AE HL aes an Te me a 02 ea a Bon fag G2 tan aa any og ea og on 2 IE aE G2 Aaa Ger Mae ara O22 toy a2 oa on 12 IZ IE BIZ AD Ga M2 om ay yp oy or YT GT IY AT aT BY aN AA OD aay aan or oer a AT MT BI ay GY AY aN a a aN op op an gt Aon gr eter yy IF MT Ay GQ Gy o_O Or Gy ay 9p Ag ay ay Ayr My Ay ay Gy ay. ON Ay a ay as ID AH AG May Asa ae Hr ay a Mae Hy Ase ASL ey fer G2 Ay Ay ey Bsr hee OR ous ay 9 5 a 055 40) ay Ta Are Ass Ass O54 oH ry | Gos MIs Gas ass as O55 Mes Ors 95 Ie Ore ASG Axe O55 Me Org an a7 Ga By Aa 52 Oey Oo OM2= As set forth supra, the Examiner finds that Funetional Phrase 2 does invoke 35 U.S.C. §112, 6th paragraph, (See § VILC.(2) supra). The Examiner construes ‘circuitry ...” as a decoder or an image processing system/device performing inverse quantization on a newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix in which the newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix has been created by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements As presented supra, the Examiner finds it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate “circuitry configured to: inversely quantize the quantized transform coefficient Ex parte Reexamination — Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 72 Art Unit: 3992 data for the image data using a 32x32 quantization matrix, the 32x32 quantization matrix set by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in an 8x8 quantization matrix” as described by Zhang, JCTVC-B205 and Smith (See § VILA.(4).g-h supra). With respect to the matrices of QMI and QM2 above, the Examiner finds that Smith, for example, specifically teaches conventional image processing interpolation methods to increase the size of an image, one of which being a “pixel replication or zero-order interpolation.” (ld, Smith at §§ 8.6 ~ 8.6.1, also see EP Request at §§ IX.A.2, IX.A 4.¢ (emphasis on pp.47-51)). The Examiner finds that Smith teaches the pixels being replicated from an NxN image to a 2Nx2N to create the large interpolated image. (Id). The Examiner finds that Smith teaches this procedure as being identical to upsampling by a factor of two. (Id; emphasis at § 8.6.1, 24). The Examiner finds that the example of Smith specifically teaches a 2x2 digital data set being upsampled/replicated/zero-order interpolated to a 4x4. (Jd; also see EP Request at §§ IX.A 4.c (emphasis on pp.49-51); and IX.A.7 (emphasis on pp.53-55)).The Examiner finds that the Smith 22 . 2 ; 22 vin, Pil vimmi= NG 3 a4 upsampled/replicated/zero-order interpolated 4x4 replaces the ayo element of the 2x2 with a 2x2 array of ago elements. Thus, the Examiner concludes that zero-order interpolation or replication is equivalent to the predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements. (/d.) The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate specifically setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix, in the form of QMI, from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix, in Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 25 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 73, Art Unit: 3992 the form of QM2, by a predicated duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements as described in Smith in the image processing system of Zhang and JCTVC-B205. ‘A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate specifically setting 32x32 transform quantization matrix, in the form of QMI1, from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix, in the form of QM2, Sy a predicated duplication of nearest-neighboring ‘matrices elements, since it provides a mechanism to utilize the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an image processing data set. (Id. at § 8.6.1; also see EP Request at §§ IX.A.3; and IX.A 4c (emphasis on pp.47-51)). In other words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HD processing that decreases required complex processing, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method. (/d.) In addi ‘ion, this combination of references sati fies at least rationale C identified by the Supreme Court in KSR: "Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way." (See MPEP 2143.) The elements of the Graham factual inquiry for supporting a finding of obviousness based on this rationale are provided below (1) A finding that the prior art (Zhang and JCTVC-B205) contained a “base” device (an image processing system) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” for including setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix, in the form of QM1, from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix, in the form of QM2, by a predicated/duplication of nearest- neighboring matrices elements that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 (2) A finding that the prior art (Smith) contained a "comparable" device (digital processing image enhancement system) that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention, i.e. the Smith pixel replication or zero-order interpolation performs a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 in order to carry out, in addition to the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, a new function of utilizing the most simplest and conventional method of increasing a digital image processing data set (3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique in the same way to the “base” device (the Zhang and JCTVC-B205 Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 74 Art Unit: 3992 image processing system) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, because Zhang indicates that utilizing interpolation in the decoder on the receiving end can be used to derive a larger quantization transform block, in the form of QM1, from a smaller transmitted/received quantization transform block, in the form of QM2, and Smith teaches a manner for improving this, the result would be predictable. In other words, the Smith implementation or providing of pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set, in the form of QM2, toa larger digital image data set, in the form of QML, that satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 proves that the implementation is both successful and entirely predictable. In Zhang and JCTVC-B205, the image processing system modified according to Smith would be capable of incorporating the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an image processing data set (ie., pixel replication or zero-order interpolation) of the Smith digital processing image enhancement system including the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set, in the form of QM2, to a larger digital image data set, in the form of QMI, that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1, in addition to higher end interpolation techniques, as evidenced by the success in the Smith digital processing image enhancement system. (4) Whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, There are not additional findings necessary, here In that regard, the Examiner asserts the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. That is, the manner of enhancing a particular device (providing of pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set, in the form of QM2, to a larger digital image data set, in the form of QMI, that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1) was made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in Smith, Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known “improvement” technique in the same manner to the prior art an image processing system of Zhang and JCTVC 8205 and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely, one skilled in the art would have readily recognized that a pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 75 Art Unit: 3992 smaller digital image data set, in the form of QM2, to a larger digital image data set, in the form of QMI, that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 in the image processing system of Zhang and JCTVC-B205 would positively provide a means to carry out, in addition to the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, a new function of utilizing the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an digital image processing data set, since such functionality is taught to be highly desirable by Smith, as set forth supra. Thus, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a “base” device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that if the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, then using the technique would not have been obvious. (KSR, $50 US. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396). If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. With respect to the limitations of claims 5 and 10, Zhang, JCTVC-B205 and Smith teaches and /or renders obvious n._ wherein the circuitry is configured to set the 32x32 quantization matrix. 6. further comprising setting, via the circuitry, the 32x32 quantization matrix. As set forth supra, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrase 3 does invoke 35 U.S.C. §112, 6th paragraph, (See § VIC.) supra). The Examiner construes ‘circuitry ...” as a decoder Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 76 Art Unit: 3992 or an image processing system comprising some type of memory setting/storing an 8x8 quantization matrix. In this light, In this light, the Examiner finds that Zhang discloses an encoding system 200 comprising a digital computer 202, memory 204, electronic files 206 and software programs 208, (Zhang at c.11, 1135-55). The Examiner finds that Zhang discloses the electronic files 206 holding quantization matrices and the memory 204 storing software programs 208 executable by the computer 202 to encode. .., decode and update the quantization matrices, (Id.). Thus, the Examiner concludes that Zhang, JCTVC-B205 and Smith sufficiently satisfies circuitry being configured to set and store the 32x32 quantization matrix. To the degree a reviewing body finds that itis not herent that Zhang teaches “circuitry is configured to set the 32x32 quamtization matric” (emphasis added), the following alternative to this feature is provided as set forth below: The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate a decoder or an image processing system comprising some type of memory setting and storing a 32x32 quantization matrix in the image processing system of Zhang, JCTVC-B205 and Smith A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate a decoder or an image processing system comprising some type of memory setting and storing a 32x32 quantization matrix, since it provides a mechanism to dynamically access the derived larger quantization transforms for further processing, In other words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HD processing that decreases the necessi to continually download data for processing, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 7 Art Unit: 3992 D. Issue 4 (Based on SNQ 3 ~ Lu and Smith) @ Claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 8-11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Smith. With respect to the limitations of claims 1, 6 and 11, Lu discloses a. [a]n image processing device comprising: b. [a]n image processing method comprising: ¢. [a] non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which when executed cause a computer to perform a method, the method comprising: The Examiner finds that Z1 discloses an image processing system and method. (Lu at Title; $7 0019, 0081, 0098-0099, 0107-0112, see Figures 3, 14, 16). The Examiner finds that the image processing system of Zu can be implemented as a computer product which may be a storage medium including instructions which can be used to program a computer to perform the image processing process. (Id. at f] 0115-0119; see Figures 17A-17C). uitry configured to: decode encoded data of image data to generate quantized transform coefficient data; and €. decoding encoded data of image data to generate quan coefficient data; and As set forth supra, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrase I does invoke 35 U.S.C. §112, 6th paragraph, (See § VI.C.(1) supra). The Examiner construes ‘circuitry ...” as a decoder or an image processing system/device performing lossless decoding In this light, the Examiner finds that Lu discloses a decoding apparatus (Lu at §¥ 0055, 0108; see Figures 3, 14) comprising a variable length decoding unit VLDI that decodes the Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010820 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 78, Art Unit: 3992 coded Str to attain weighting matrices Wmatrix. (/d. at 0110-0111). The Examiner finds that is known in the art that variable length coding is lossless data compression, The Examiner finds that the output of the variable length decoding unit VLD1 would be the quantized transform coefficients data. (/d. at 0081), ireuitry configured to:... inversely quantize the quantized transform coefficient data for the image data using a 32x32 quantization matrix, the 32x32 quantization matrix set by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in an 8x8 quantization matrix. inversely quantizing, via circuitry of an image processing device, the quantized transform coefficient data for the image data using a 32x32 quantization matrix, the 32x32 quantization matrix set by perfor nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in an 8x8 quantization matrix. h, inversely quantizing the quantized transform coefficient data for the data using a 32x32 quantization matrix, the 32x32 quantization matrix set by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in an 8x8 quantization matrix. As set forth supra, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrase 2 does invoke 35 U.S.C. §112, 6th paragraph, (See § VI.C.(2) supra). The Examiner construes ‘circuitry ...” as a decoder or an image processing system/device performing inverse quantization on a newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix in which the newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix has been created by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements. In this light, the Examiner finds that L1 discloses the utilization of an inverse quantization unit 1Q1 within the decoding apparatus that performs inverse quantization on the using the weighted quantization matrix. (Lu at { 0106, 0107, 0110). The Examiner finds that Lu discloses encoding and decoding of the quantization matrix being limited to fixed size transform blocks and the need to be able to utilize multiple size blocks to meet the demand for high resolution images (HDTV). (Id. at J{] 0019, 0021-0024). The Examiner finds that Lu discloses Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 79 Art Unit: 3992 one of the first size and second size may be selected according to a bit rate of the coded stream, a resolution of the picture and/or an indication from outside. (/d. at ${] 0034-0035). The Examiner finds that Lu discloses an embodiment in which the weighting matrices are determined on a per- stream or-picture basis in which an 8x8 weighting matrix WS is derived from a 4x4 weighting matrix W4, (Id. at $9 0099-0100, 0104, 0106, 0112; see Figure 16), The Examiner finds that Lu discloses this embodiment as a mechanism to utilize the quantization transform block that will be especially effective. (Jd. at 7 0099, 0106) While Lu discloses all the limitations as set forth above, Lu is silent to the circuitry explicitly setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix instead of setting an 8x8 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 4x4 transform quantization matrix; and the setting ({., the upsampling and/or interpolation) of the 32x32 transform quantization matrix being accomplished by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in the smaller 8x8 quantization matrix, The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate specifically setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix instead of setting an 8x8. transform quantization matrix from a smaller 4x4 transform quantization matrix as described in Luin the image processing system of Lu. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate specifically setting 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix instead of setting an 8x8 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 4x4 transform quantization matrix, since /1 explicitly teaches “one of the first size and second size may be selected Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 80 Art Unit: 3992 according to a bit rate of the coded stream, a resolution of the picture and/or an indication from outside” and this approach provides a dynamic “per-stream or ~picture” implementation. (4 0034-0035, 0099)’, (Jd) In other words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HD processing that provides improved coding efficiency of high resolution video, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method. (/d.) Furthermore, the Examiner finds that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (i¢., “Obvious to try”), would lead to anticipated success. (See MPEP § 2143.LE). That is, since Lu explicitly teaches the utilization of transmitting small size quantization transforms matrices and the deriving of larger quantization transforms matrices on the decoding end to utilize the quantization transform block that will be especially effective, L1 teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions (i.e, transmit a small 8x8 quantization block transform matrix and derive a larger 32x32 quantization block transform therefrom) with a reasonable expectation of success (i.¢., Obvious to try). As set forth supra, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrase 2 does invoke 35 U.S.C. $112, 6th paragraph. (See § VIC.(2) supra). The Examiner construes a “circuitry ...’ as a decoder or an image proces ing systemv/device performing inverse quantization on a newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix in which the newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix has been created by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices element The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Lu to disclose not only the use of a 4x4 transform quantization matrix to generate an 8x8 transform quantization matrix, but also the applicability ofits techniques to “one of the first size and second size may be selected,” namely to an x8 transform quantization ‘matrix to generate a 32832 transform quantization matrix, Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 81 Art Unit: 3992 From this perspective, the Examiner finds that se ing (i.c., the upsampling and or interpolation) of the 32x32 transform quantization matrix being accomplished by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in the smaller 8x8 quantization matrix is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Smith for example, specifically teaches conventional image processing interpolation methods to increase the size of an image, one of which being a “pixel replication or zero-order interpolation.” (Jd. Smith at §§ 8.6 — 8.6.1, also see EP Request at §§ IX.A.2, IX.A 4.¢ (emphasis on pp.47-51)). The Examiner finds that Smith teaches the pixels being replicated from an NxN image to a 2Nx2N to create the large interpolated image. (/d.). The Examiner finds that Smith teaches this procedure as being identical to upsampling by a factor of two. (Id; emphasis at § 8.6.1, 2"). Thus, the Examiner concludes that zero-order interpolation or replication is equivalent to the predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements. (See example in § 86.1 at top of p.417 of Smith The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate specifically setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix by a predicated duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements as described in Smith in the image processing system of Lu. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate specifically setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix by a predicated duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, since it provides a mechanism to.utilize the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an image processing data set. (Id. at § 8.6.1; also see EP Request at §§ IX.A.3; and IX.A 4.c (emphasis on pp.47-51)). In other Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 25 30 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 82 Art Unit: 3992 words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HD processing that decreases required complex processing, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method. (Id) In addition, this combination of references satisfies at least rationale C identified by the Supreme Court in KSR: "Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way." (See MPEP 2143.) The elements of the Graham factual inquiry for supporting a finding of obviousness based on this rationale are provided below (1) A finding that the prior art (Zu) contained a “base” device (an image processing system) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” for including setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform qua! ion matrix by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 (2) A finding that the prior art (Smith) contained a "comparable" device (digital processing image enhancement system) that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention, ‘e. the Smith pixel replication or zero-order interpolation performs a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 in order to carry out, in addition to the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, a new function of utilizing the most simplest and conventional method of increasing a digital image processing data set (3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique in the same way to the “base” device (the Lu image processing system) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, because Lu indicates that an operation in the decoder on the receiving end can be used to derive a larger quantization transform block from a smaller transmitted/received quantization transform block and Smith teaches a manner for improving this, the result would be predictable. In other words, the Smith implementation or providing of pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set to a larger digital image data set that satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 proves that the implementation is both successful and entirely predictable. In Z1, the image processing system modified according to Smith would be capable of incorporating the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an image processing data set (i., pixel replication or zero- order interpolation) of the Simith digital processing image enhancement system including the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set to a larger digital image data set that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1, in addition to Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 83, Art Unit: 3992 higher end interpolation techniques, as evidenced by the succes image enhancement system in the Smith digital processing (4) Whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. There are not additional findings necessary, here. In that regard, the Examiner asserts the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. That is, the manner of, enhancing a particular device (providing of pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set to a larger digital image data set that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1) was made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in Smith. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known “improvement” technique in the same manner to the prior art an image processing system of Zu and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely, one skilled in the art would have readily recognized that a pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller di ital image data set to a larger digital image data set that sufficiently satisfies the ci try of claim 1 in the image processing system of 1 would positively provide a means to carry out, in addition to the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements anew function of utilizing the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an digital image processing data set, since such functionality is taught to be highily desirable by Smith, as set forth supra. Thus, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 84 Art Unit: 3992 the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a “base” device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that if the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, then using the technique would not have been obvious. (KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396). If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. With respect to the limitations of claims 3 and 8, Lu and Smith teaches and /or renders obvious wherein the circuitry is configured to store the 8x8 quantization matrix. j- further comprising storing the 8x8 quantization matrix. As set forth supra, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrase 3 does invoke 35 U.S.C. §112, 6th paragraph, (See § VILC.(3) supra). The Examiner construes ‘circuitry ...” as a decoder or an image processing system comprising some type of memory storing an 8x8 quantization matrix. ht, the Examiner finds that Lu discloses the image processing system/method being downloaded/uploaded to a computer system Cs and the computer system Cs performing the method. (Lv at $0114). The Examiner finds that Luv discloses an embodiment in which the weighting matrices are determined on a per-stream or-picture basis in which an 8x8 weighting matrix W8 is derived from a 4x4 weighting matrix W4. (/d. at §{] 0099-0100, 0104, 0106, 0112; see Figure 16). The Examiner finds that in order for larger quantization transform matrices (ce., Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 85 Art Unit: 3992 16x16 or 32x32) to be derived, the smaller 4x4 or 8x8 transform block matrices must be stored in memory in the decoder/image processing system. Thus, the Examiner concludes that Lar sufficiently sat fies circuitry being configured to store the 8x8 quantization matrix. To the degree a reviewing body finds that it is not inherent that Zar teaches “circuitry is configured to store the 8x8 quantization matrix” (emphasis added), the following alternative to this feature is provided as set forth below. The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate a decoder or an image processing system comprising some type of memory storing an 8x8 quantization matrix in the image processing system of Ln and Smith. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate a decoder or an image processing system comprising some type of memory storing an 8x8 quantization matrix, since it provides a mechanism to dynamically access the transmitted/received smaller quantization transforms for further processing, In other words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HD processing that decreases the necessity to continually download data for processing, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method, With respect to the limitations of claims 4 and 9, Lu and Smith teaches and /or renders obvious Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 20210108Appli Art Unit: 3992 ation/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 86 k. wherein the circuitry is configured to inversely quantize the quantized transform coefficient data for the image data using the 32x32 quantizat matrix (QM1) set by performing the nearest neighboring process on the element: 1. where inversely quant the 8x8 quantization matrix (QM2): ing includes inversely quantizing, the circuitry, the quantized transform coefficient data for the image data using the 32x32 n matrix (QM1) set by performing the nearest neighboring process on the elements in the 8x8 quantization matrix (QM2): quan (ow ys a) ayy a a) ao, OMiw 9 9 9 9 on on 0 Ap A A A a3 0% aes ae 2 eg (200 Ao, OM2= As A a a6 9 9 as on cy ye ang ooo arr a ayy ay ay ays Ay 5 as aw aw ay aw ay ay au an az ay ay ay aay as as ass as an an ay ay ay ay ay ay a2 ay ae 2 a2 axe a7 ax ex ayy ax a a9 a6 a0 As, Me, As: eq ay Ass gy a Ce 5s ass ms O55 65 6 sr gy tte ay ay ay a oy am a7 te ay As set forth supra, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrase 2 does invoke 35 U.S.C. $112, 6th paragraph, (See § VILC.(2) supra). The Examiner construes ‘circuitry Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action * asa decoder Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 87 Art Unit: 3992 or an image processing system/device performing inverse quantization on a newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix in which the newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix has been created by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements. As presented supra, the Examiner finds it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate “circuitry configured to:.. inversely quantize the quantized transform coefficient data for the image data using a 32x32 quantization matrix, the 32x32 quantization matrix set by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in an 8x8 quantization matrix” as described by Lu and Smith (See § VILD.(1).g-h supra), With respect to the matrices of QMII and QM2 above, the Examiner finds that Smith, for example, specifically teaches conventional image processing interpolation methods to increase the ize of an image, one of which being a “pixel replication or zero-order interpolation.” (Id. Smith at §§ 8.6 ~ 8.6.1; also see EP Request at §§ IX.A.2, IX.A 4.c (emphasis on pp.47-51)). The Examiner finds that Smith teaches the pixels being replicated from an NxN image to a 2Nx2N to create the large interpolated image. (Id). The Examiner finds that Smith teaches this procedure as being identical to upsampling by a factor of two. (Jd; emphasis at § 8.6.1, 24). The Examiner finds that the example of Smith specifically teaches a 2x2 digital data set being upsampled/replicated/zero-order interpolated to a 4x4. (Jd; also see EP Request at §§ IX.A 4.c (emphasis on pp.49-51); and IX.A.7 (emphasis on pp.53-55)).The Examiner finds that the Smith 22 afny nal Q:| yfrer.ny} tte ‘ 4 o 3 44 eee meee upsampled/replicated/zero-order interpolated 4x4 replaces the ave element of the 2x2 with a 2x2 Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 88 Art Unit: 3992 array of ago elements. Thus, the Examiner concludes that zero-order interpolation or replication is, equivalent to the predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements. (/d.) The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate specifically setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix, in the form of QM1, from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix, in the form of QM2, by a predicated duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements as described in Smith in the image processing system of Lu A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate specifically setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix, in the form of QM1, from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix, in the form of QM2, by a predicated duplication of nearest-neighboring ‘matrices elements, since it provides a mechanism to utilize the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an image processing data set. (Id. at § 8.6.1; also see EP Request at §§ TX.A.3; and IX.A 4.¢ (emphasis on pp.47-51)). In other words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HD processing that decreases required complex processing, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method. (/d.) In addition, this combination of references satisfies at least rationale C identified by the ‘Supreme Court in KSR: "Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way." (See MPEP 2143.) The elements of the Graham factual inquiry for supporting a finding of obviousness based on this rationale are provided below (1) A finding that the prior art (Lu) contained a “base” device (an image processing system) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” for including setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix, in the form of QM1, from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix, in the form of QM2, by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 30 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 89 Art Unit: 3992 (2) A finding that the prior art (Smith) contained a "comparable" device (digital processing image enhancement system) that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention, ic. the Smith pixel replication or zero-order interpolation performs a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 in order to carry out, in addition to the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, a new function of utilizing the most simplest and conventional method of increasing a digital image processing data set (3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known. “improvement” technique in the same way to the “base” device (the Lv image processing system) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, because Lu indicates that utilizing an operation in the decoder on the receiving end can be used to derive a larger quantization transform block, in the form of QM1, from a smaller transmitted/received quantization transform block, in the form of QM2, and Smith teaches a manner for improving this, the result would be predictable. In other words, the Smith implementation or providing of pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results ina duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set, in the form of QM2, to larger digital image data set, in the form of QMI, that satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 proves that the implementation is both successful and entirely predictable. In Lu, the image processing system modified according to Smith would be capable of incorporating the most simplest and conventional method of inereasing an image processing data set (Le., pixel replication or zero-order interpolation) of the Smith digital processing image enhancement system including the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set, in the form of QM2, to a larger digital image data set, in the form of QMI, that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1, in addition to higher end interpolation techniques, as evidenced by the success in the Smith digital processing image enhancement system. (4) Whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. There are not additional findings necessary, here In that regard, the Examiner asserts the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. That is, the manner of, enhancing a particular device (providing of pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that, results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set, in the form of QM2, to a larger digital image data set, in the form of QMI, that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1) was made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in Smith, Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known “improvement” Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 90 Art Unit: 3992 technique in the same manner to the prior art an image processing system of / and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely, one skilled in the art would have readily recognized that a pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set, in the form of QM2, to a larger digital image data set, in the form of QMI, that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 in the image processing system of Lu would positively provide a means to carry out, in addition to the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, a new function of utilizing the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an digital image processing data set, since such functionality is taught to be highly desirable by Smith, as set forth supra. Thus, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a “base” device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that if the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, then using the technique would not have been obvious. (KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396). If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art With respect to the limitations of claims 5 and 10, 2 and Smith teaches and /or renders obvious Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 20210108Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 91 Art Unit: 3992 red to set the 32x32 quan n matrix. ¢ circuitry, the 32x32 quantization matrix. As set forth supra, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrase 3 does invoke 35 U.S.C. §112, 6th paragraph, (See § VILC.(3) supra). The Examiner construes ‘circuitry ...’ as a decoder or an image processing system comprising some type of memory setting/storing an 8x8 quantization matrix. In this light, the Examiner finds that Lu discloses the image processing system/method being downloaded/uploaded to a computer system Cs and the computer system Cs performing the method. (Lu at 0114), The Examiner ids that Lv discloses an embodiment in which the weighting matrices are determined on a per-stream or-picture basis in which an 8x8 weighting matrix WS is derived from a 4x4 weighting matrix W4. (/d. at $¥ 0099-0100, 0104, 0106, 0112; jure 16). The Examiner finds that in order for larger quantization transform matrices (i., 16x16 or 32x32) that are derived from the smaller 4x4 or 8x8 transform block matrices to be utilized in the HD processing, the larger quantization transform matrices (é.e., 16X16 or 32x32) must be stored in memory in the decoder/image processing system. Thus, the Examiner concludes that Lv and Smith sufficiently satisfies circuitry being configured to set and store the 32x32 quantization matrix, To the degree a reviewing body finds that itis not inherent that Lv teaches “circuitry is configured to set the 32x32 quantization matrix” (emphasis added), the following alternative to this feature is provided as set forth below The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate a decoder or an image proces ing system comprising some type of memory setting and storing a 32x32 quantization matrix in the image processing system of La and Smith. Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 92 Art Unit: 3992 A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate a decoder or an image processing system comprising some type of memory setting and storing a 32x32 quantization matrix, since it provides a mechanism to dynamically access the derived larger quantization transforms for further processing, In other words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HD processing that decreases the necessity to continually download data for processing, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method 2 Claim(s) 2 and 7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lut in view of Smith as applied to claims 1, 3-6 and 8-11 above, and in further view of Zhang. With respect to the limitations of claims 2 and 7, and o. wherein the 8x8 quantization matrix is a default quantization matrix, Lu and Smith discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the 8x8 quantization matrix being a default quantization matrix. However, an image processing system and method including an 8x8 quantization matrix being a default quantization matrix is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Zhang, for example, teaches an 8x8 quantization matrix as being a default quantization matrix. (Zhang at 3, 112-3: 5, 11.40-44; see Figure 4) ‘The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system and method of La and Smith to include an 8x8 quantization matrix being a default quantization matrix as described in Zhang. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate an 8x8 Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 25 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 93 Art Unit: 3992 quantization matrix as being a default quantization matrix, since it provides a mechanism to ensure that the image processing device operates and maintains desired exiting behavior in calculating larger quantization matrices. In other words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HD processing that will not provide initial undesired results, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method E. _ Issue 5 (Based on SNQ 3 — Lu, JCTVC-B205 and Smith) @ Claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 8-11 are rejected under pre-ATA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lu in view of JCTVC-B205 and Smith. To the degree a reviewing body finds that /.n does not teach, suggest and/or render obvious “setting a 32v32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix” (emphasis added), the following alternative to this feature is provided as set forth below With respect to the limitations of claims 1, 6 and 11, Lu discloses a. [aln image processing device comprising: b. [a]n image processing method comprising: ¢. [a] non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which when executed cause a computer to perform a method, the method comprising: ‘The Examiner finds that /w discloses an image processing system and method. (Lu at Title; §7 0019, 0081, 0098-0099, 0107-0112; see Figures 3, 14, 16). The Examiner finds that the image processing system of Lu can be implemented as a computer product which may bea storage medium including instructions which can be used to program a computer to perform the image processing process. (Id. at | 0115-0119; see Figures 17A-17C), Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 20210108Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 94 Art Unit: 3992 To the degree a reviewing body finds that it is not inherent that Zhou'S/5 teaches “circuitry is configured 10 set the 32x32 quantization matrix” (emphasis added), the following alternative to this feature is provided as set forth below: Bi ireuitry configured to: decode encoded data of image data to generate quantized transform coefficient data; and ¢. decoding encoded data of image data to generate quantized transform coefficient data; and 10 As set forth supra, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrase | does invoke 35 U.S.C. $112, 6th paragraph, (See § VILC.(1) supra), The Examiner construes ‘circuitry ...’ as a decoder or an image processing system/device performing lossless decoding, In this light, the Examiner finds that Lv discloses a decoding apparatus (Lv at §¥ 0055, 15 0108; see Figures 3, 14) comprising a variable length decoding unit VLDI that decodes the coded Str to attain weighting matrices Wmatrix. (/d. at 0110-0111). The Examiner finds that it is known in the art that variable length coding is lossless data compression, The Examiner finds that the output of the variable length decoding unit VLD1 would be the quantized transform coefficients data. (Id. at {| 0081), Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010815 20 30 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 95 Art Unit: 3992 f ‘cuitry configured to:... inversely quantize the quantized transform coefficient data for the image data using a 32x32 quantization matrix, the 32x32 quantization matrix set by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in an 8x8 quantization matri g. inversely quantizing, via circuitry of an image processing device, the quantized transform coefficient data for the image data using a 32x32 quantization matrix, the 32x32 quantization matrix set by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in an 8x8 quantization matrix. h. inversely quantizing the quantized transform coefficient data for the image data using a 32x32 quantization matrix, the 32x32 quantization matrix set by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in an 8x8 quantization matrix. As set forth supra, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrase 2 does invoke 35 U.S.C. §112, 6th paragraph. (See § VILC.(2) supra). The Examiner construes ‘circuitry ...’ as a decoder or an image processing system/device performing inverse quantization on a newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix in which the newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix has been created by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements. In this light, the Examiner finds that Lu discloses the utilization of an inverse quantization unit 1Q1 within the decoding apparatus that performs inverse quantization on the using the weighted quantization matrix. (Lu at { 0106, 0107, 0110). The Examiner finds that Lu discloses encoding and decoding of the quantization matrix being limited to fixed size transform blocks and the need to be able to utilize multiple size blocks to meet the demand for high resolution images (HDTV). (Id. at ${] 0019, 0021-0024). The Examiner finds that Lu scloses an embodiment in which the weighting matrices are determined on a per-stream or-picture basis in which an 8x8 weighting matrix W8 is derived from a 4x4 weighting matrix W4. (Id. at §¥] 0099- 0100, 0104, 0106, 0112; see Figure 16). The Examiner finds that Lu discloses this embodiment as a mechanism to utilize the quantization transform block that will be especially effective. (Id. at $f) 0099, 0106), Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 96 Art Unit: 3992 While Lv discloses all the limitations as set forth above, Lu is silent to the circuitry explicitly setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix instead of setting an 8x8 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 4x4 transform quantization matrix; and the setting (e., she upsampling and/or interpolation) of the 32x32 transform quantization matrix being accomplished by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in the smaller 8x8 quantization matrix, However, JC7VC-B205 teaches and suggests setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix. JCTVC-B205, for example, teaches the previous “AVC” standard being limited to 4x4 and 8x8 quantization block transform matrices (JCTVC-B205 at p.94-95; p.136, § 10.1), JCTVC-B205 further teaches that HD processing can now include, not only 4x4 and 8x8 quantization block transform matrices, but can now include 16x16, 3232 and 64x64 quantization block transform matrices, (Id. at p.136, § 10.1). JCTVC- B205 further teaches that the utilization of large transforms provides better energy consumption and reduced quantization error, resulting in smoother data. (Id) The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate specifically setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix instead of setting an 8x8 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 4x4 transform quantization matrix as described in JCTVC-B205 in the image processing system of Lt, A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate specifically setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix instead of setting an 8x8 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 4x4 transform quantization Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 97 Art Unit: 3992 matrix, since it provides a mechanism of utilizing large transforms with better energy consumption and reduced quantization error characteristics. (/d.) In other words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HD processing that provides nal improved coding efficiency of high resolution video, thereby increasing the operati efficiency of the image processing device and method. (Id) Furthermore, the Examiner finds that choosing from a finite number of identified. predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (i¢., “Obvious to try”), would lead to anticipated success. (See MPEP § 2143.LE). That is, since Lu explicitly teaches the utilization of transmitting small size quantization transforms matrices of 4x4 and the deriving of larger quantization transforms matrices of 8x8 on the decoding end to utilize the quantization transform block that will be especially effective, and JC7VC-B205 explicitly teaches the utilization of 32x32 quantization block transform matrices to provide better energy consumption and reduced quantization error, resulting in smoother data, Z1v and JC7VC-B205 teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions (i., transmit a small 8x8 quantization block transform matrix and derive a larger 32x32 quantization block transform therefrom) with a reasonable expectation of success (i.¢., Obvious to try). (See Declaration filed by Lina J. Karam on 23 December 2020 (“Karam Declaration”) at § 0120- 0121). As set forth supra, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrase 2 does invoke 35 U.S.C. $112, 6th paragraph, (See § VIC (2) supra). The Examiner construes a “circuitry ...’ as a decoder or an image processing system/device performing inverse quantization on a newly created 32x32 quantization transform data matrix in which the newly created 32x32 quantization Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 98, Art Unit: 3992 transform data matrix has heen created by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements. From this perspective, the Examiner finds that setting (i.e., te upsampling and/or interpolation) of the 32x32 transform quantization matrix being accomplished by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in the smaller 8x8 quantization matrix is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Sith for example, specifically teaches conventional image processing interpolation methods to increase the size of an image, one of which being a “pixel replication or zero-order interpolation,” (Id. Smith at §§ 8.6 — 8.6.1; also see EP Request at §§ IX.A.2, IX.A 4c (emphasis on pp.47-51)). The Examiner finds that Smith teaches the pixels being replicated from an NxN image to a 2Nx2N to create the large interpolated image. (/d.). The Examiner finds that Smith teaches this procedure as being identical to upsampling by a factor of two. (Id; emphasis at § 8.6.1, 24). Thus, the Examiner concludes that zero-order interpolation or replication is equivalent to the predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements. (See example in § 86.1 at top of p.417 of Smith The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate specifically setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix by a Smith in the predicated duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements as described i image processing system of Zu and JCTVC-B205. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate specifically setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix by a predicated duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, since it provides a mechanism Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 15 20 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 99 Art Unit: 3992 to utilize the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an image processing data set. (Id. at § 8.6.1; also see EP Request at $§ IX.A.3; and IX.A 4.c (emphasis on pp.47-51)). In other words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HD processing that decreases required complex processing, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method. (/d.) In addition, this combination of references satisfies at least rationale C identified by the Supreme Court in KSR: "Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way." (See MPEP 2143.) The elements of the Graham factual inquiry for supporting a finding of obviousness based on this rationale are provided below. (1) A finding that the prior art (Lu and JC7VC-B205) contained a “base” device (an mage processing system) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” for including setting a 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 (2) A finding that the prior art (Smith) contained a “comparable” device (digital processing image enhancement system) that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention, Ze. the Smith pixel replication or zero-order interpolation performs a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 in order to carry out, in addition to the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, a new function of utilizing the most simplest and conventional method of increasing a digital image processing data set (3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique in the same way to the “base” device (the Lu and JCTVC-B205 image processing system) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, because Lw indicates that an operation in the decoder on the receiving end can be used to derive a larger quantization transform block from a smaller transmitted/received quantization transform block and Smith teaches a manner for improving this, the result would be predictable In other words, the Smith implementation or providing of pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set to a larger digital image data set that satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 proves that the implementation is both successful and entirely predictable. In Lar and JCIVC- 205, the image processing system modified according to Smith would be capable of incorporating the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an image processing data Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 2021010810 Application/Control Number: 90/014,637 Page 100 Art Unit: 3992 set (ie., pixel replication or zero-order interpolation) of the Smith digital processing image enhancement system including the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set to a larger digital image data set that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1, in addition to higher end interpolation techniques, as evidenced by the success in the Smith digital processing image enhancement system. (4) Whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. There are not additional findings necessary, here. In that regard, the Examiner asserts the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. That is, the manner of, enhancing a particular device (providing of pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set to a larger digital image data set that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1) was made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in Smith. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known “improvement” technique in the same manner to the prior art an image processing system of Lu and JCTVC-B205 and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely, one skilled in the art would have readily recognized that a pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set to a larger digital image data set that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 in the image processing system of Lu and JCTVC- B205 would positively provide a means to carry out, in addition to the duplication of nearest- neighboring matrices elements, a new function of utilizing the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an digital image processing data set, since such functionality is taught to be highly desirable by Smith, as set forth supra. Ex parte Reexamination Non Final Office Action Part of Paper No. 20210108