CTNF 18/128,747 CTNF 68930 DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to the application filed on 3/30/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The references listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 4/3/2023, 2/1/2024 has/have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449). Claim Mapping Notation In this office action, following notations are being used to refer to the paragraph numbers or column number and lines of portions of the cited reference. In this office action, following notations are being used to refer to the paragraph numbers or column number and lines of portions of the cited reference. [0005] (Paragraph number [0005]) C5 (Column 5) Pa5 (Page 5) S5 (Section 5) Furthermore, unless necessary to distinguish from other references in this action, “et al.” will be omitted when referring to the reference. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a1) and (a2 ) as being anticipated by Galpin et al. (US 11128864 B2) 1. An apparatus comprising: at least one memory and circuitry coupled to the at least one memory, wherein the circuitry is to access video from the at least one memory, “[0021] According to another general embodiment described herein, there is provided an apparatus for coding a block of video data. The apparatus comprises a memory, and a processor, configured to generate a vector of boundaries possibilities for a block of image data using a convolutional neural network from at least one input data, an input data comprising, for said block of image data, a motion vector field and residual data from motion compensation based on the motion vector field; partition said block of image data into one or more partitions using said vector of boundaries possibilities; and, encode said one or more partitions.” wherein the circuitry is to: select one or more settings to apply to encode the video based on a cost of signaling applicable settings. “[0061]…However, when a highly detailed texture is difficult to encode and results in residuals with a high energy, it is relevant to split into small blocks since the price of the syntax is worthwhile compared to the cost reduction of residuals. A full RDO would then consist in evaluating every possible block partitioning of a CTU, which is of huge complexity. A reference software encoder uses a subset of the full RDO, considers only a fixed causal part in the CTU and adds some heuristics but the combinatory remains very high.” 2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is to determine a setting of the one or more settings to determine a cost of encoding based on a cost of signaling the setting of the one or more settings. “[0061]…However, when a highly detailed texture is difficult to encode and results in residuals with a high energy, it is relevant to split into small blocks since the price of the syntax is worthwhile compared to the cost reduction of residuals. A full RDO would then consist in evaluating every possible block partitioning of a CTU, which is of huge complexity. A reference software encoder uses a subset of the full RDO, considers only a fixed causal part in the CTU and adds some heuristics but the combinatory remains very high.” 3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is to reduce a number of settings for which to determine a cost of encoding based on a cost of signaling the setting of the one or more settings. “[0061]…However, when a highly detailed texture is difficult to encode and results in residuals with a high energy, it is relevant to split into small blocks since the price of the syntax is worthwhile compared to the cost reduction of residuals. A full RDO would then consist in evaluating every possible block partitioning of a CTU, which is of huge complexity. A reference software encoder uses a subset of the full RDO, considers only a fixed causal part in the CTU and adds some heuristics but the combinatory remains very high.” 4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is to determine a setting of the one or more settings for which to not determine a cost of encoding based on a cost of signaling the setting of the one or more settings. “[0061]…However, when a highly detailed texture is difficult to encode and results in residuals with a high energy, it is relevant to split into small blocks since the price of the syntax is worthwhile compared to the cost reduction of residuals. A full RDO would then consist in evaluating every possible block partitioning of a CTU, which is of huge complexity. A reference software encoder uses a subset of the full RDO, considers only a fixed causal part in the CTU and adds some heuristics but the combinatory remains very high.” 5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more settings comprise one or more of: block size, block partition, transform type, transform size, interpolation filter, intra prediction mode, inter prediction mode, or reference frame. “[0061]…However, when a highly detailed texture is difficult to encode and results in residuals with a high energy, it is relevant to split into small blocks since the price of the syntax is worthwhile compared to the cost reduction of residuals. A full RDO would then consist in evaluating every possible block partitioning of a CTU, which is of huge complexity. A reference software encoder uses a subset of the full RDO, considers only a fixed causal part in the CTU and adds some heuristics but the combinatory remains very high.” 6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is to: reduce a number of settings for which to determine a cost of encoding based on a cost of signaling the setting of the one or more settings, select at least one setting among the number of settings for which to determine a cost of encoding associated with a lowest cost of encoding, and perform video encoding based on the selected at least one setting. “[0061]…However, when a highly detailed texture is difficult to encode and results in residuals with a high energy, it is relevant to split into small blocks since the price of the syntax is worthwhile compared to the cost reduction of residuals. A full RDO would then consist in evaluating every possible block partitioning of a CTU, which is of huge complexity. A reference software encoder uses a subset of the full RDO, considers only a fixed causal part in the CTU and adds some heuristics but the combinatory remains very high.” 7. The apparatus of claim 6, wherein the circuitry is to: indicate the selected at least one setting to a video decoder. “[0061]…However, when a highly detailed texture is difficult to encode and results in residuals with a high energy, it is relevant to split into small blocks since the price of the syntax is worthwhile compared to the cost reduction of residuals. A full RDO would then consist in evaluating every possible block partitioning of a CTU, which is of huge complexity. A reference software encoder uses a subset of the full RDO, considers only a fixed causal part in the CTU and adds some heuristics but the combinatory remains very high.” 8. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is to encode the video based on one or more of: a Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) format, an International Telecommunication Union-Telecommunication Standardization Section (ITU-T) format, or an Alliance for Open Media (AOMedia) format. “[0061] These embodiments are incorporated within the framework of compression of video, specifically at the encoding stage where decisions are made to partition the images of a given input video sequence into blocks. Since H.264/MPEG4-AVC, hybrid codecs have partitioned the images into blocks of different sizes to adapt their compression tools to the textures and objects. In H.265/HEVC for example, the images are first divided into 64×64 non-overlapping Coding Tree Units (CTU), which are then potentially split into smaller Coding Units (CU) down to 8×8 pixels.” Regarding the claims 9-14 and 16-20, they recite elements that are at least included in the claims 1-6, 8 and 1, 2, 5 and 6 above but in a different claim form. Therefore, the same rationale for the rejection of the claims 1-6, 8 and 1, 2, 5 and 6 applies. Regarding the storage medium in the claims, see [0022] of the reference. 15. The method of claim 9, wherein the video comprises one or more of: visual data, audio data, speech data, image data, text data, or metadata. [0020] According to at least one general embodiment described herein, there is provided a method for coding a block of video data . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Galpin et al. (US 11128864 B2) and Le Leannec et al. (US 12155827 B2) disclose relevant art related to the subject matter of the present invention . A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE N NOH whose telephone number is (571)270-0686. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30AM-5PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JAE N NOH/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 2481 Application/Control Number: 18/128,747 Page 2 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 18/128,747 Page 3 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 18/128,747 Page 4 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 18/128,747 Page 5 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 18/128,747 Page 6 Art Unit: 2481
Prosecution Insights