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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, and 8 recites the limitation “determining whether a plurality of transformation forms are allowed for a current block; obtaining partitioning information indicating a partitioning depth for the current block based on the determination”. The applicant’s originally filed specification fails to disclose this limitation. More specifically, in the applicant’s remarks filed 4/1/2026, the applicant cites [0102] and [0653]-[0655] of the applicant’s specification as disclosing this limitation. The examiner notes the cited paragraphs appear to be directed toward discrete steps of the encoding/decoding process and the process of obtaining partitioning depth information is not dependent upon a determination of allowable transform types.
Claims 2-5 are rejected based on their respective dependencies upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. (Zhao) (US 2017/0280162).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao discloses an image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising:
determining whether a plurality of transformation forms are allowed for a current block ([0059], a flag is signaled to indicate allowable transform types);
obtaining partitioning information indicating a partitioning depth for the current block based on the determination ([0049], a split depth is signaled) (please see the 35 USC 112a rejection above regarding this limitation);
determining a size of a subblock based on the partitioning information ([0048], the subblock size is determined relative to a split type) and at least one of a size of a current block or a shape of the current block ([0021], the size of the sub block is determined based on the size of a leaf node block);
partitioning the current block into one or more subblocks based on the size of the subblock ([0021], [0023], [0048], [0051], the size of the sub block can not exceed a maximum or a minimal size);
performing inverse-transformation for the subblock ([0047], inverse transformation is performed);
generating a residual signal based on the inverse-transformation ([0048], a residual is generated); and
reconstructing the current block based on the residual signal and a prediction signal ([0005], [0118], [0157], [0160], samples (residuals) of the transform block are added to a prediction block to reconstruct a block),
wherein the prediction signal is generated by determining a prediction mode of the current block and performing prediction based on the determined prediction mode ([0095], a prediction mode is signaled for performing prediction),
wherein a binary tree partitioning is allowed for the current block having a width different from a height (FIG. 4a, block 51 is partitioned into blocks 55 and 56 using binary partitioning; block 53 is partitioned to produce blocks 61 and 62 using binary partitioning), and
wherein the partitioning for the current block is ([0049], splitting is iterated until the block reaches a predetermined size) based on depth information indicating a number of partitioning times for the current block ([0049], [0051], the block is split a number of times until it reaches a size indicated by a partitioning depth).
Regarding claim 2, Zhao discloses wherein, in case the current block is square, a quadtree partitioning is performed for the current block (FIG. 4a, square block 50 is partitioned to yield 4 leaf blocks 51-53).
Regarding claim 3, Zhao discloses wherein the partitioning the current block is performed based on a predetermined index for a partitioning ([0053], partitioning flags are signaled), and
wherein, in case the current block is a 4Nx4N block (FIG. 3, block 40), the current block is not partitioned (FIG. 3, square blocks with solid lines are not furthered partitioned), or the current block is partitioned into four 2Nx2N subblocks (FIG. 4, block 51-53).
Regarding claim 6, Zhao discloses an image encoding method performed by an image encoding apparatus, the image encoding method comprising:
obtaining a residual signal for a current bock based on a prediction signal ([0048], a residual is generated);
determining whether a plurality of transformation forms are allowed for a current block ([0059], a flag is signaled to indicate allowable transform types);
obtaining partitioning information indicating a partitioning depth for the current block based on the determination ([0049], a split depth is signaled) (please see the 35 USC 112a rejection above regarding this limitation);
determining a size of a subblock based on the partitioning information ([0048], the subblock size is determined relative to a split type) and at least one of a size of a current block or a shape of the current block ([0021], the size of the sub block is determined based on the size of a leaf node block);
partitioning the current block into one or more subblocks based on the size of the subblock ([0021], [0023], [0048], [0051], the size of the sub block can not exceed a maximum or a minimal size);
performing transformation for the subblock ([0049], [0058], transform is applied); and
encoding the residual signal based on the transformation ([0048], a residual is generated),
wherein the prediction signal is generated by determining a prediction mode of the current block and performing prediction based on the determined prediction mode ([0095], a prediction mode is signaled for performing prediction),
wherein a binary tree partitioning is allowed for the current block having a width different from a height (FIG. 4a, block 51 is partitioned into blocks 55 and 56 using binary partitioning; block 53 is partitioned to produce blocks 61 and 62 using binary partitioning), and
wherein depth information indicating a number of partitioning times for the current block indicating that the partitioning for the current block is encoded ([0049], splitting is iterated until the block reaches a certain size; [0051], the block is split a number of times until it reaches a size indicated by a partitioning depth).
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 8 are rejected in the analysis of claim 6. Zhao further discloses a method of transmitting a bitstream (FIG. 10, the bitstream is received by receiving device 14), generating a bitstream based on the encoding of the residual signal ([0005], [0118], [0157], [0160], samples (residuals) of the transform block are added to a prediction block to reconstruct a block), transmitting the bitstream (FIG. 10, the bitstream is received by receiving device 14).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (Zhao) (US 2017/0280162) in view of Zhang et al. (Zhang) (US 2017/0150186).
Regarding claim 4, Zhao discloses the method of claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Zhao is silent about wherein selection information indicating whether a partitioning shape for transformation of the current block is determined adaptively is obtained from a bitstream, and wherein the partitioning the current block is performed based on the selection information.
Zhang from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses wherein selection information indicating whether a partitioning shape for transformation of the current block is determined adaptively is obtained from a bitstream ([0204], a transform split type is signaled and splitting is performed), and wherein the partitioning the current block is performed based on the selection information ([0204], a transform split type is signaled and splitting is performed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhang into the teachings of Zhao for more efficient video coding and decoding.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (Zhao) (US 2017/0280162) in view of Kang et al. (Kang) (US 2014/0286421).
Regarding claim 5, Zhao discloses the method of claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Zhao is silent about wherein the partitioning the current block is performed differently according to whether a prediction mode of the current block is an inter mode or an intra mode.
Kang from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the partitioning the current block is performed differently according to whether a prediction mode of the current block is an inter mode or an intra mode ([0085], Table 1, there are different split types for each prediction mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kang into the teachings of Zhao for more efficient video coding and decoding.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li et al. (Li) (US 2017/0208336) ([0078], the depth of a node in a tree structure may refer to the length of the path (e.g., the number of splits) from the node to the root of the tree structure).
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 JEFFERY A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7579. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Sath Perungavoor can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/JEFFERY A WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights