DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is a response to an application filed on 03/28/2026, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 13-14 are currently amended.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims rejected under 35 USC 102 and 103 in Remarks filed on 10/24/2025 have been considered but are moot upon further consideration and a new ground of rejection made under 35 USC 103 based on Blaser (“Description of SDR and 360° video coding technology proposal by RWTH Aachen University”, JVET-J0023-r1, 04/10/2018, IDS filed on 12/22/2023.) in view of Chen (CN 114710665 B), and further in view of Blaser’2 (“Description of SDR and 360 video coding technology proposal by RWTH Aachen University”, JVET-J0023-r1, 04/10/2018).
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaser (“Description of SDR and 360° video coding technology proposal by RWTH Aachen University”, JVET-J0023-r1, 04/10/2018, IDS filed on 12/22/2023.) in view of Chen (CN 114710665 B), and further in view of Blaser’2 (“Description of SDR and 360 video coding technology proposal by RWTH Aachen University”, JVET-J0023-r1, 04/10/2018).
Regarding claim 1, Blaser discloses an image decoding device comprising a circuit (Blaser; Pg i. Abstract. An imaging encoder/decoder, including a circuit, is used to performed video coding.),
wherein the circuit decodes a first syntax for controlling possibility of application of a geometric partitioning mode of a decoding target sequence (Blaser; Table 9, Pg. 7, 8. A first syntax, geo_cu_flag, is decoded for enabling/disabling possibility of using a geometric partitioning mode for a decoding sequence.), and
controls, according to a value of the first syntax, whether to decode a second syntax for controlling possibility of application of an intra prediction mode to the geometric partitioning mode of the decoding target sequence (Blaser; Table 9, Pg. 7, 8. A second syntax, geo_inter_intra_flag, is determined to be decoded for enabling/disabling possibility of using an intra prediction mode to a geometric partitioning mode in accordance with a first syntax).
But it does not specifically disclose decoding a first syntax for controlling, at a sequence level, the possibility of application of a geometric partitioning mode of a to an entire decoding target sequence comprising a plurality of blocks, and decoding a second syntax for controlling, at the sequence level.
However, Chen teaches decoding a first syntax for controlling, at a sequence level, the possibility of application of a geometric partitioning mode of a to an entire decoding target sequence comprising a plurality of blocks, and decoding a second syntax for controlling, at the sequence level (Chen; Pg. 43, 3rd Para. Switch control information/a first syntax is used/decoded for controlling the possibility of using geometric division mode at a sequence level, and a flag/a second syntax is used/decoded for controlling at a sequence level.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding system of Blaser to adapt a syntax/indication processing approach, by incorporating Chen’s teaching wherein different syntax elements are used for perform prediction associated with GPM and intra-prediction, for the motivation to perform video coding using various prediction modes (Chen; Abstract.).
But modified Blaser does not specifically teach wherein for a portion of values of the first syntax, the circuit decodes the second syntax and for another portion of values of the first syntax, the circuit does not decode the second syntax.
However, Blaser’2 teaches wherein for a portion of values of the first syntax, the circuit decodes the second syntax and for another portion of values of the first syntax, the circuit does not decode the second syntax (Blaser’2; “2.1.1.1.1 Syntax”, Table 1, 2, 4, 9. Whether geo_inter_intra_flag is decoded depending on values of geo_ctu_flag, wherein for one of values of geo_ctu_flag, geo_inter_intra_flag is decoded, and for another one of values of geo_ctu_flag, geo_inter_intra_flag is not decoded.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the video coding system of modified Blaser to adapt a syntax/indication processing approach, by incorporating Chen’s teaching wherein intra coding flag is decoded depending on a sequence level flag, for the motivation to perform coding on GEO blocks (Blaser’2; Abstract.).
Regarding claim 2, modified Blaser teaches wherein the circuit: decodes the second syntax when the value of the first syntax is 1 (Blaser; Table 9, Pg. 7, 8. A second syntax is decoded for a first syntax being 1.); and
does not decode the second syntax when the value of the first syntax is not 1 (Blaser; Table 9, Pg. 7, 8. A second syntax is decoded for a first syntax being not 1.).
Regarding claim 4, modified Blaser teaches wherein the circuit: infers a value of a first internal parameter for controlling whether to apply the geometric partitioning mode to a decoding target block under a first predetermined condition when the value of the second syntax is not 1 (Blaser; Table 9, Pg. 7, 8. For a second syntax being not 1, a value of a first parameter is determined/inferred for enabling or not the geometric partitioning mode.); and
infers a value of a second internal parameter for controlling whether to apply the geometric partitioning mode to the decoding target block under a second predetermined condition when the value of the second syntax is 1 (Blaser; Table 9, Pg. 7, 8. For a second syntax being 1, a value of a second parameter is determined/inferred for enabling or not the geometric partitioning mode.).
Regarding claim 5, modified Blaser teaches wherein the second predetermined condition includes a condition that a fourth syntax indicating a type of a decoding target slice is a B-slice or a P-slice (Blaser; Table 9, Pg. 7, 8. A second condition includes a fourth syntax indicating a decoding slice being a B-slice or a P-slice.).
Claim 13 is directed to an image decoding method, comprising a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claim 1, and is rejected for the same reason of anticipation as outlined above.
Claim 14 is directed to a program stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium for causing a computer to function as an image decoding device, the image decoding device comprising a circuit, wherein: the circuit performs a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claim 1, and is rejected for the same reason of anticipation as outlined above.
Regarding claim 15, modified Blaser teaches circuit is configured to decode coded image data including the decoding target sequence, in accordance with the first syntax and the second syntax, and output an image signal obtained by decoding the coded image data (Blaser; Table 9, Pg. 7, 8. Coded image data is decoded including a decoding target sequence, including a coding unit or segment, in accordance with a first syntax and a second syntax, and image data is obtained by decoding coded image data.).
Regarding claim 16, modified Blaser teaches circuit is configured to decode coded image data including the decoding target sequence, in accordance with the first syntax and the second syntax, and output an image signal obtained by decoding the coded image data (Blaser; Table 9, Pg. 7, 8. Coded image data is decoded including a decoding target sequence, including a coding unit or segment, in accordance with a first syntax and a second syntax, and image data is obtained by decoding coded image data.).
Regarding claim 17, modified Blaser teaches circuit is configured to decode coded image data including the decoding target sequence, in accordance with the first syntax and the second syntax, and output an image signal obtained by decoding the coded image data (Blaser; Table 9, Pg. 7, 8. Coded image data is decoded including a decoding target sequence, including a coding unit or segment, in accordance with a first syntax and a second syntax, and image data is obtained by decoding coded image data.).
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaser (“Description of SDR and 360° video coding technology proposal by RWTH Aachen University”, JVET-J0023-r1, 04/10/2018, IDS filed on 12/22/2023.) in view of Chen (CN 114710665 B) and Blaser’2 (“Description of SDR and 360 video coding technology proposal by RWTH Aachen University”, JVET-J0023-r1, 04/10/2018), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamori (WO 2021131058 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Blaser teaches the second syntax (Blaser; See remarks regarding claim 1 above.).
But modified Blaser does not specifically teach wherein the circuit: decodes a third syntax for controlling a number of types of intra prediction modes applicable to the geometric partitioning mode of the decoding target sequence when the value of the second syntax is 1; and does not decode the third syntax when the value of the second syntax is not 1.
However, Yamori teaches wherein the circuit: decodes a third syntax for controlling a number of types of intra prediction modes applicable to the geometric partitioning mode of the decoding target sequence when the value of the second syntax is 1 (Yamori; Fig. 7, Pg 8, 3rd, 4th Para. For a second syntax being 1 indicating a use of intra prediction, a third syntax/index is decoded for determining a number of types of intra prediction modes on a geometric partition mode of a decoding sequence.); and
does not decode the third syntax when the value of the second syntax is not 1 (Yamori; Fig. 7, Pg 8, 3rd, 4th Para. For a second syntax being not 1 indicating no use of intra prediction, a third syntax is not decoded.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the modified video coding system of Blaser to adapt a syntax/indication processing approach, by incorporating Yamori’s teaching wherein different syntax elements are used for perform prediction associated with GPM, for the motivation to perform video coding using non-rectangular partitions (Yamori; Abstract.).
Regarding claim 6, modified Blaser further teaches wherein the circuit: decodes a fifth syntax specifying a partitioning shape of the geometric partitioning mode of the decoding target block when the value of the first internal parameter or the second internal parameter is 1 (Yamori; Pg. 7, 3rd to 5th Para. For a first internal parameter being 1, a fifth syntax element is decoded for indicating a partitioning shape of GPM.); and
does not decode the fifth syntax when the value of the first internal parameter or the second internal parameter is not 1 (Yamori; Pg. 7, 3rd to 5th Para. For a second internal parameter being not 1, a fifth syntax element is not decoded.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ma (US Pub. 20250211763 A1) teaches a video coding system that perform GPM with pixel-by-pixel weighting.
Deng (US Pub. 20240163459 A1) teaches a video coding system performs coding on a target block with a geometric partitioning mode.
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 ALBERT KIR whose telephone number is (571)272-6245. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2988. 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.
/ALBERT KIR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights