DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 02/25/2026 has been entered. Claims 1- 17 are pending in this application.
Claims 1, 4- 6, 9, 11- 14, and 17 have been amended. Claims 2-3, 7- 8, 10, and 15- 16 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1- 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 9, 11, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tae Young Na (US 20220166974 A1) (hereinafter Na) in view of Woong Lim (US 20220321890 A1) (hereinafter Lim):
Regarding Claim 1, Na teaches a method performed by a video decoding apparatus for decoding a current block in an image (a method and system for decoding/encoding a images [0006]), the method comprising:
generating residual samples by inverse transforming transform coefficients of the current block (decoder derives residual samples in the current block by inverse transforming transform coefficients [0138), wherein a number of the residual samples is less than a number of samples of the current block (only a sub-block of the current block is transformed,, so the derived residual-sample set is smaller than the samples of the full current block [0081]- [0082]); and
generating a residual block of the current block by rearranging the residual samples (the decoder rearranges residual samples within the current block to form the residual block [0138]- [0139])
Na does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Lim teaches decoding, from a bitstream, information on a partition boundary of the current block (decoding geometric partitioning information from the bitstream and using it to partition the target block[0981]- [0983], [0790]- [0791]);
subblocks located on the partition boundary(the subblocks are located on the partition line [0797]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify video coding as disclosed by Na to add the teachings of Lim as disclosed above to improve overall coding performance. (Lim [0065]).
Regarding Claim 4, Na in view of Lim teach the method of claim 1. Lim further teaches each of the subblocks has a fixed block size (the subblocks have a fixed size [0922]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify video coding as disclosed by Na to add the teachings of Lim as disclosed above to improve overall coding performance. (Lim [0065]).
Regarding Claim 9, Na teaches a method performed by a video encoding apparatus for transforming a residual block of a current block (a method and system for decoding/encoding a images [0006]), the method comprising:
arranging residual samples of the subblocks in a rectangular block(the residual samples of the blocks are arranges [0105]- [0110]), wherein a number of the residual samples is less than a number of samples of the current block (only a sub-block of the current block is transformed,, so the derived residual-sample set is smaller than the samples of the full current block [0081]- [0082]); and
generating transform coefficients of the current block by transforming the residual samples of the rectangular block(the encoder transforms the residual samples of the transform subblock to generate transform coefficients [0118], [0039]); and
encoding the transform coefficients into the bitstream (encoding the transform coefficients into the bitstream [0042]).
Na does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Lim teaches determining a partition boundary of the current block(determining the partition boundary based on the angle and distance of the geometric partitioning [0790]- [0791]);
encoding partition information on the partition boundary of the current block into a bitstream (encoding the geometric partition information of the current block into the bitstream [0023], [0974]- [0977]);
determining subblocks located on the partition boundary (the subblocks are located on the partition line [0797]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify video coding as disclosed by Na to add the teachings of Lim as disclosed above to improve overall coding performance. (Lim [0065]).
Regarding Claim 11, Na in view of Lim teach the method of claim 9. Lim further teaches each of the subblocks has a fixed block size (the subblocks have a fixed size [0922]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify video coding as disclosed by Na to add the teachings of Lim as disclosed above to improve overall coding performance. (Lim [0065]).
Regarding Claim 14, Na in view of Lim teach the method of claim 9. Lim further teaches the information comprises an index indicating a combination of an angle and a distance of the partition boundary relative to an origin of the current block (the boundary shape information expresses an distance and angle index; the partition information is relative to the current block [0792]- [0795]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify video coding as disclosed by Na to add the teachings of Lim as disclosed above to improve overall coding performance. (Lim [0065]).
Regarding Claim 17, Na teaches a method for providing video data to a video decoding device (a method and system for decoding/encoding a images [0006]), the method comprising:
arranging residual samples of the subblocks in a rectangular block(the residual samples of the blocks are arranges [0105]- [0110]), wherein a number of the residual samples is less than a number of samples of the current block (only a sub-block of the current block is transformed,, so the derived residual-sample set is smaller than the samples of the full current block [0081]- [0082]); and
generating transform coefficients of the current block by transforming the residual samples of the rectangular block (the encoder transforms the residual samples of the transform subblock to generate transform coefficients [0118], [0039]); and
decoding the transform coefficients into the bitstream (decoding the transform coefficients into the bitstream [0042])..
Na does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Lim teaches encoding the video data into a bitstream (video data is encoded into the bitstream [0146], [0198], [0202]); and
transmitting the bitstream to the video decoding device (the bitstream is transmitted to the decoding device [0199]), wherein encoding the video data comprises:
determining a partition boundary of a current block (determining the partition boundary based on the angle and distance of the geometric partitioning [0790]- [0791]);
encoding partition information on the partition boundary into the bitstream (encoding the geometric partition information of the current block into the bitstream [0023], [0974]- [0977]);
determining a plurality of subblocks located on the partition boundary(the subblocks are located on the partition line [0797]);
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify video coding as disclosed by Na to add the teachings of Lim as disclosed above to improve overall coding performance. (Lim [0065]).
Claims 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tae Young Na (US 20220166974 A1) (hereinafter Na) in view of Woong Lim (US 20220321890 A1) (hereinafter Lim) in view of Adria Arrufat (US 20180359492 A1) (hereinafter Arrufat):
Regarding Claim 5, Na in view of Lim teach the method of claim 1; however, do not explicitly teach Lim further teaches the residual samples are arranged in a vectorized form
However, in an analogous art, Arrufat teaches the residual samples are arranged in a vectorized form (the residual samples are in vectorized form [0199]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify video coding as disclosed by Na in view of Lim to further add the teachings of Arrufat as disclosed above to improve image quality. (Arrufat [0022]).
Regarding Claim 12, Na in view of Lim teach the method of claim 9; however, do not explicitly teach Lim further teaches the residual samples are arranged in a vectorized form.
However, in an analogous art, Arrufat teaches the residual samples are arranged in a vectorized form (the residual samples are in vectorized form [0199]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify video coding as disclosed by Na in view of Lim to further add the teachings of Arrufat as disclosed above to improve image quality. (Arrufat [0022]).
Claims 6, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tae Young Na (US 20220166974 A1) (hereinafter Na) in view of Woong Lim (US 20220321890 A1) (hereinafter Lim) in view of Sung Chang Lim (US 20220264151 A1) (hereinafter Sung):
Regarding Claim 6, Na in view of Lim teach the method of claim 1; however, do not explicitly teach Lim further teaches the residual samples are arranged in a vectorized form.
However, in an analogous art, Sung teaches the subblocks are aligned in one direction and have equal sizes (the subblocks are vertically aligned and are of equal sizes [0735]- [0737]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify video coding as disclosed by Na in view of Lim to further add the teachings of Sung as disclosed above to improve image quality. (Sung [0027]).
Regarding Claim 13, Na in view of Lim teach the method of claim 9; however, do not explicitly teach Lim further teaches the residual samples are arranged in a vectorized form
However, in an analogous art, Sung teaches the subblocks are aligned in one direction and have equal sizes (the subblocks are vertically aligned and are of equal sizes [0735]- [0737]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify video coding as disclosed by Na in view of Lim to further add the teachings of Sung as disclosed above to improve image quality. (Sung [0027]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD KAMAL ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (703)756-1694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jamie Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAHMOUD KAMAL ABOUZAHRA/Examiner, Art Unit 2486
/JAMIE J ATALA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights