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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/02/2026 has been entered.
This office action is a response to an application filed on 02/02/2026, in which claims 17-36 are pending and ready for examination.
Response to Amendment
Claims 17, 25-26, and 34-35 are currently amended.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims rejected under 35 USC 103 in Remarks filed on 02/02/2026 have been considered but are moot upon further consideration and a new ground of rejection made under 35 USC 103 based on Misra (US Pat. 11290716 B2) in view of Urban (EP 3306929 A1), and further in view of Ma (“Quadtree plus binary tree with shifting (including software)”, 04/10/2018, JVET-J0035-v4).
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 17-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misra (US Pat. 11290716 B2) in view of Urban (EP 3306929 A1), and further in view of Ma (“Quadtree plus binary tree with shifting (including software)”, 04/10/2018, JVET-J0035-v4, IDS submitted).
Regarding 17, Misra discloses an encoder device comprising: a processor configured at least to (Misra; Col. 48, Ln. 43-60. A video coding system/method is used to code video data.):
determine from video data a picture slice (Misra; Col. 23, Ln. 10 to Ln. 38. A picture slice is determined.);
determine for the picture slice a coding tree unit (CTU) (Misra; Col. 23, Ln. 10 to Ln. 38. A CTU is determined for a picture slice);
evaluate symmetric split modes QT_SPLIT, HOR, and VER when partitioning the CTU (Misra; Col. 23, Ln. 10 to Ln. 38. Partitioning modes, QT, HOR, and VER, are determined/evaluated for partitioning a CTU.);
But it does not specifically disclose determine that one of symmetric binary split modes QT_SLIT, HOR, and VER applied to the CTU results in a preferred coding unit (CU) in terms of rate distortion cost, and based on the determination, deactivate applying an asymmetric binary tree (ABT) split mode.
However, Urban teaches determine that one of symmetric binary splot modes QT_SLIT, HOR, and VER applied to the CTU results in a preferred coding unit (CU) in terms of rate distortion cost (Urban; Fig. 4B, 5, Para. [0095-96]. A symmetric binary splitting is determined to be used to results in a preferred coding unit in terms of RD cost among QT, HOR, and VER modes, wherein partition is performed on CTU into preferred CUs using symmetric split mode.); and
based on the determination, deactivate applying an asymmetric binary tree (ABT) split mode (Urban; Fig. 4B, 5, Para. [0095-96]. ABT split mode is disallowed based on the RD determination.).
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 Misra to adapt a block partition/splitting scheme, by incorporating Urban’s teaching wherein symmetric splitting and asymmetric splitting are employed in accordance with coding cost, for the motivation to determine the optimal splitting mode (Urban; Abstract.).
But modified Misra does not specifically teach determine that one of symmetric binary split modes QT SPLIT, HOR, and VER applied to the CTU results in a preferred coding unit (CU) in terms of rate distortion cost, that the preferred CU is in skip mode, and that the preferred CU is not partitioned into a subCU.
However, Ma teaches determine that one of symmetric binary split modes QT SPLIT, HOR, and VER applied to the CTU results in a preferred coding unit (CU) in terms of rate distortion cost, that the preferred CU is in skip mode, and that the preferred CU is not partitioned into a subCU (Ma; Heading “2.5 Encoder speed ups”. One of symmetric binary split modes QTBT/QT_SPLIT, Parallel/HOR, and Perpendicular/VER is determined to be applied to a CTU, having the best RD for the CU being skip mode and not partitioned into a subCU.).
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 Misra to adapt a block partition/splitting scheme, by incorporating Ma’s teaching wherein split mode optimization process is implemented, for the motivation to determine the optimal splitting mode (Ma; Abstract.).
Regarding claim 18, modified Misra teaches wherein the one of symmetric binary split modes QT_SPLIT, HOR, and VER is a horizontal binary split mode and the ABT mode is a horizontal ABT split mode (Misra; Col. 23, Ln. 1 to Ln. 19. A symmetric binary partition, QT_SPLIT, HOR, VER, is a horizontal BT partition, and an ABT partition is a horizontal ABT partition.).
Regarding claim 19, Misra discloses wherein the horizontal ABT split mode is HOR_UP (Misra; Col. 23, Ln. 1 to Ln. 19. A horizontal ABT partition is HOR_UP.).
Regarding claim 20, Misra discloses wherein the horizontal ABT split mode is HOR_DOWN (Misra; Col. 23, Ln. 1 to Ln. 19. A horizontal ABT partition is HOR_DOWN.).
Regarding claim 21, Misra discloses wherein the one of symmetric binary split modes QT_SPLIT, HOR, and VER is a vertical binary split mode and the ABT split mode is a vertical ABT split mode (Misra; Col. 23, Ln. 1 to Ln. 19. A symmetric binary partition is a vertical BT partition, and an ABT partition is a vertical ABT partition.).
Regarding claim 22, Misra discloses wherein the vertical ABT split mode is VER_LEFT (Misra; Col. 23, Ln. 1 to Ln. 19. A vertical ABT partition is VER_LEFT.).
Regarding claim 23, Misra discloses wherein the vertical ABT split mode is VER_RIGHT (Misra; Col. 23, Ln. 1 to Ln. 19. A vertical ABT partition is VER_RIGHT.).
Regarding claim 24, Misra discloses wherein the processor configured to evaluate symmetric split modes QT_SPLIT, HOR, and VER is configured to evaluate modes of splitting the CTU during a rate distortion optimization procedure (Misra; Col. 23, Ln. 10 to Ln. 38. Partition modes are determined/evaluated by a processor during a rate distortion optimization, see Co. 40, Ln. 15-20.).
Regarding claim 25, Misra discloses wherein the preferred CU is in skip mode (Misra; Col. 23, Ln. 10 to Ln. 38. A block/CU associated with a prediction mode is not partitioned/in skip mode prior to the signaling of partition modes.).
Claims 26-34 are directed to a method of encoding comprising a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claims 17-25, and are rejected for the same reason of anticipation as outlined above.
Claims 35-36 are directed to an encoder device comprising a processor configured at least to perform a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claims 17-25, and are rejected for the same reason of anticipation as outlined above.
Regarding claim 36, modified Misra further teaches determine that a vertical symmetric binary split mode applied to the CTU results in a second preferred coding unit (CU) in terms of rate distortion cost (Urban; Para. [0095-96]. A vertical symmetric binary splitting is determined to be used to results in a preferred coding unit in terms of RD cost.);
on a condition that the vertical symmetric binary split mode applied to the CTU results in the second preferred CU in terms of rate distortion cost, deactivate applying a vertical ABT split mode (Urban; Para. [0095-96]. For a condition that a vertical symmetric splitting being used on a CTU resulting in a preferred CU in terms of RD cost, a vertical asymmetric binary splitting is disabled.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Le Leannec (WO 2019245841 A1) teaches a video coding system that performs block partition based on asymmetric binary partitioning of image blocks.
Le Leannec (WO 2022223312 A1) teaches a video coding system that performs encoder-side adaptations for ABT.
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