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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/19/25 has been entered.
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 of this title, 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, 3-10, 12, 14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2022/0337864) in view of Liu et al. (US 2017/0006309).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a method for processing video data (see figs. 4-5), comprising: determining to split a coding tree unit (CTU) into one or more coding units (CUs) (e.g. see ¶ [0090]); determining to recursively split the CUs into prediction units (PUs) (see fig. 16), wherein one or more of the CUs are one or more prediction tree units (PTUs) (e.g. see “PBs” in ¶ [0090]), at least one PTU is further split into a plurality of PUs (e.g. see ¶ [0090]), and at least one PU is further split into a plurality of PUs (see fig. 16); and performing a conversion between a visual media data and a bitstream based on the PUs (e.g. see ¶ [0090]), wherein a splitting depth is calculated for a PU or a PTU (e.g. see ¶ [0139]), wherein the splitting depth for the PTU or the PU is initialized to a fixed number or a depth of a CU corresponding to the PTU or the PU (e.g. see ¶ [0139]).
Although Li discloses wherein residuals generated from a plurality of PUs are transform coded in a transform unit (TU) (e.g. see ¶ [0128]) and wherein at least one leaf PU split from a common PTU has an assigned prediction mode from other leaf PUs (e.g. see ¶ [0128]), it is noted that Li does not disclose wherein the plurality of PUs are transform coded in a single transform unit (TU), and wherein the assigned prediction mode is different.
However, Liu discloses a method for processing video data wherein the plurality of PUs are transform coded in a single transform unit (TU) (see 292 in fig. 23; e.g. see ¶ [0369]), and wherein the assigned prediction mode is different (e.g. see “33 direction intra prediction modes” in ¶ [0219]).
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Liu teachings of constrained depth intra mode coding into Li prediction coding for the benefit of preventing characteristics of prediction modes used in 3D-HEVC and characteristics of the transform tree subdivision used in 3D-HEVC from interfering with each other.
Regarding claim 3, Li further discloses wherein splitting the at least one PTU into a plurality of PUs comprises: splitting the at least one PTU into four PUs by a quad tree (QT) (see QT in fig. 16),
Regarding claim 4, Li further discloses wherein splitting the at least one PU into a plurality of PUs comprises: splitting the at least one PU into four PUs by a quad tree (QT) (see QT in fig. 16),
Regarding claim 5, Li further discloses wherein the bitstream comprises information regarding one or more splits applied to the PUs and PTUs (see syntax in fig. 16).
Regarding claim 6, Li further discloses wherein the information comprises a first syntax element indicating whether a corresponding PTU is further split into multiple PUs (e.g. see ¶ [0131]).
Regarding claim 7, Li further discloses wherein the information comprises a second syntax element indicating whether a corresponding PU is further split into multiple PUs (e.g. see ¶ [0131]).
Regarding claim 8, Li further discloses wherein the information comprises a third and fourth syntax element indicating a split pattern and split direction for a PTU or for a PU, respectively (e.g. see ¶ [0131]).
Regarding claim 9, Li further discloses wherein the third and fourth syntax element are only signaled for a PTU or for a PU when the PTU or PU is further split (see no further syntax signaled after “QT_nodes” in fig. 16).
Regarding claim 10, Li further discloses wherein the information is coded in the bitstream with context-based arithmetic coding or bypass coding (e.g. see ¶ [0055]).
Regarding claim 12, Li further discloses wherein the splitting depth for the PU or the PTU comprises one of: a QT depth indicating a number of times an ancestor video unit is split by a quad tree (QT), and a multiple-type-tree (MTT) depth indicating a number of times the ancestor video unit is split by any split type (e.g. see ¶ [0139]).
Regarding claim 14, Li further discloses wherein splitting information of a current video unit is not included in the bitstream and is inferred by a decoder, and wherein the current video unit is a PU or a PTU (e.g. see ¶ [0160]).
Regarding claim 17, Li further discloses wherein the conversion includes encoding the visual media data into the bitstream (see 320 in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, Li further discloses wherein the conversion includes decoding the bitstream from the visual media data (see 330 in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 19, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 20, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Liu in view of Sim et al. (US 2022/0191531).
Regarding claim 15, Li does not disclose wherein the splitting information is inferred according to at least one of: the current video unit relative to a height threshold,
However, Sim discloses an efficient coding wherein the splitting information is inferred according a height of the current video unit relative to a height threshold (e.g. see ¶ [0128]).
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Sim teachings of splitting inference into Li splitting of blocks for the benefit of efficiently coding residual blocks.
Regarding claim 16, Li further discloses wherein further splitting of the current video unit is disallowed when at least one of the following conditions is met: the height of the current video unit is larger or smaller than the height threshold, the width of the current video unit is larger or smaller than the width threshold, an area of the current video unit is larger or smaller than an area threshold, the splitting depth of the current video unit is larger or smaller than the depth threshold, or combinations thereof (e.g. see ¶ [0143]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-10, 12 and 14-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rosewarne et al. (US 2022/0046288), discloses coding tree with split rules.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD T TORRENTE whose telephone number is (571)270-3702. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6:45-3:15 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, 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.
/RICHARD T TORRENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485