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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-7 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “vertical binary-tree splitting and horizontal binary-tree” should be “vertical binary-tree splitting and horizontal binary-tree splitting” [Page 3, Line 4]. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8 of the Applicant’s Remarks, the Applicant argues that Chen in view of Gao in further view of Chuang fails to disclose, teach, or suggest at least “determining a target splitting type applied to the first splitting type of the current block if the current block is an out-of-bounds node and the current block is smaller than or equal to the predefined size, wherein the target splitting type is selected from a plurality of candidates, the plurality of candidates comprises at least one of quadtree splitting, vertical binary-tree splitting and horizontal binary-tree”.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s Remarks. The claim limitation states, “determining a target splitting type applied to the first splitting type of the current block if the current block is an out-of-bounds node and the current block is smaller than or equal to the predefined size, wherein the target splitting type is selected from a plurality of candidates, the plurality of candidates comprises at least one of quadtree splitting, vertical binary-tree splitting and horizontal binary-tree.”
Firstly, the claim limitation states that the target splitting type is selected from a plurality of candidates, the plurality of candidates comprises at least one of quadtree splitting, vertical binary-tree splitting and horizontal binary-tree. Thus, the “plurality of candidates” must contain at least one of the three modes listed in the claim language.
Secondly, Chen discloses if a portion of a tree node block exceeds the bottom picture boundaries, … otherwise (the block is a BTT node or the-size of the block is smaller than or equal to the minimum QT size), the block is forced to be split with SPLIT_BT_HOR mode. … Otherwise if a portion of a tree node block exceeds the right picture boundaries, … Otherwise (the block is a BTT node or the size of the block is smaller than or equal to the minimum QT size), the block is forced to be split with SPLIT_BT_VER mode. [See Chen, Section 3.2.3].
Thus, Chen discloses that when the block is smaller than or equal to the minimum QT size, the block is forced to be split with either SPLIT_BT_VER mode or SPLIT_BE_HOR mode which is dependent on the boundary in which the block exceeds. Therefore, the amended claim limitations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at least in view of Chen.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Algorithm description for Versatile Video Coding and Test Model (VTM 3)” by Chen et al. (Hereafter, “Chen”) in view of GAO et al. (Hereafter, “Gao”) [US 2021/0084299 A1] in further view of Chuang et al. (Hereafter, “Chuang”) [US 2018/0070110 A1].
In regards to claim 1, Chen discloses a method of processing video data in a video coding system [Fig. 1], comprising: receiving input data associated with a current block in a current picture ([Fig. 1] input video); determining if the current block is an out-of-bounds node, wherein the out-of- bounds node is a coding tree node of the current picture with a block region across a current picture boundary ([Section 3.2.3] a portion of the tree node block exceeds the bottom or right picture boundary); determining whether the current block is larger than a predefined size ([Section 3.2.3] the size of the block is larger than the minimum QT size); determining an inferred splitting type applied to a first splitting type of the current block if the current block is an out-of-bounds node and the current block is larger than the predefined size ([Section 3.2.3] If a portion of a tree node block exceeds both the bottom and the right picture boundaries, If the block is a QT node and the size of the block is larger than the minimum QT size, the block is forced to be split with QT split mode.), ([Section 3.2.3] If a portion of a tree node block exceeds both the bottom and the right picture boundaries, If the block is a QT node and the size of the block is larger than the minimum QT size, the block is forced to be split with QT split mode.); determining a target splitting type applied to the first splitting type of the current block if the current block is an out-of-bounds node and the current block is smaller than or equal to the predefined size ([Section 3.2.3] a tree block exceeds the bottom or right boundaries and the size of the block is smaller than or equal to the minimum QT size), wherein the target splitting type is selected from a plurality of candidates, the plurality of candidates comprises at least one of quadtree splitting, vertical binary-tree splitting and horizontal binary-tree ([Section 3.2.3] when the block is smaller than or equal to the minimum QT size, the block is forced to be split with SPLIT_BT_HOR mode or SPLIT_BT_VER mode depending on the right or bottom picture boundaries that it exceeds); applying the target splitting type applied to the first splitting type of the current block to split the current block into child blocks if the current block is an out-of-bounds node and current block is smaller than or equal to the predefined size ([Section 3.2.3] if a tree block exceeds the bottom boundaries and the size of the block is smaller than or equal to the minimum QT size, the block is forced to be split with SPLIT_BT_HOR mode and if a tree block exceeds the right boundaries and the size of the block is smaller than or equal to the minimum QT size, the block is forced to be split with SPLIT_BT_VER mode); and encoding or decoding the current block in the current picture according to the child blocks [Fig. 1].
Gao discloses a method of processing video data in a video coding system ([Abstract] The present disclosure provides apparatuses and methods for splitting an image into coding units. [0002] The present disclosure relates the field of video processing, in particular to the topic normally referred to as hybrid video coding and compression. [0046] FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing an exemplary structure of a video encoder configured to implement embodiments of the invention. [0047] FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing an example structure of a video decoder configured to implement embodiments of the invention.), comprising: receiving input data associated with a current block in a current picture ([0062] FIG. 1 shows an encoder 100 which comprises an input for receiving input blocks of frames or pictures of a video stream and an output for providing an encoded video bitstream. [0093] FIG. 2 shows an example of a video decoder 200. [0094] The decoder 200 is configured to decode the encoded video bitstream generated by the video encoder 100, and preferably both the decoder 200 and the encoder 100 generate identical predictions for the respective block to be encoded/decoded.); determining if the current block is an out-of-bounds node, wherein the out-of- bounds node is a coding tree node of the current picture with a block region across a current picture boundary ([0110] In this disclosure, the term “boundary CTU” is used to denote a coding tree unit which is separated by an image boundary into a part in the image.); ([0100] Both in the patent [WO2016090568] with QTBT structure and in VTM-1.0, the boundary CTU/CU forced partition process is inherited from HEVC. This means that CTU/CU located on the frame boundary, and in particular, a CTU/CU through which the boundary runs so that parts of the CTU/CU are outside the picture/frame (in this disclosure, such CTUs / CUs are also referred to respectively as “boundary CTUs” and “boundary CUs”), is first forced partitioned by quadtree (QT) structure without rate-distortion (RD) optimization until the whole current CU lying inside the slice/picture boundary. These forced partitions are no needed to be signaled in the bitstream.); applying the inferred splitting type applied to the first splitting type of the current block to split the current block into child blocks if the current block is an out-of-bounds node ([0100] This means that CTU/CU located on the frame boundary, and in particular, a CTU/CU through which the boundary runs so that parts of the CTU/CU are outside the picture/frame (in this disclosure, such CTUs / CUs are also referred to respectively as “boundary CTUs” and “boundary CUs”), is first forced partitioned by quadtree (QT) structure without rate-distortion (RD) optimization until the whole current CU lying inside the slice/picture boundary.); ([0085] Returning to FIG. 1, after performing the image splitting in the splitting unit 110, the transformation, quantization, and entropy coding are carried out respectively by a transform unit 130, a quantization unit 140 and an entropy encoding unit 150 so as to generate as an output the encoded video bitstream. [0094] The decoder 200 is configured to decode the encoded video bitstream generated by the video encoder 100, and preferably both the decoder 200 and the encoder 100 generate identical predictions for the respective block to be encoded/decoded.).
Chuang discloses determining an inferred splitting type applied to a first splitting type of the current block if the current block is an out-of-bounds node the current block in an intra slice, picture, or tile is the same as the inferred splitting type applied to the first splitting type of the current block in an inter slice, picture, or tile ([0135] According to certain techniques of this disclosure, video encoder 20 and video decoder 30 may implement a pre-defined manner of splitting for all CTUs that span across a picture boundary. Because the splitting structure of cross-picture CTUs is predefined in these examples, video encoder 20 may not signal tree-type information until the partitioning results in all samples of each CU being located within the current picture. [0176] In some such examples, the processing circuitry of video decoder 30 may determine that a coding tree unit (CTU) of the video data spans a picture boundary such that a size of the CTU extends beyond a padding region of a current picture, and based on the CTU spanning the picture boundary, the processing circuitry of video decoder 30 may recursively partition the CTU using a predetermined partitioning scheme of the multi-type tree structure to form a plurality of coding units (CUs) that includes the current CU, such that the current CU is positioned entirely within the current picture.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Chen with the teachings that the coding units that are partially outside of the picture are all first forced partitioned by quadtree (QT split) as taught by Gao. The motivation behind this modification would have been to provide for flexibly selecting from different modes by using quad tree splitting in the hierarchical splitting of the boundary CTU [See Gao].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Chen with the teachings that all CTUs across a picture boundary are split in a pre-defined manner as taught by Chuang. The motivation behind this modification would have been to improve the efficiency of the video device through the implementation of not signalling a splitting method for each CU located out outside of the current picture which would enhance the signalling efficiency with respect to the block partitioning structures [See Chuang].
In regards to claim 2, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Chen discloses wherein the inferred splitting type is quadtree if the current block is an out-of-bounds node ([Section 3.2.3] If a portion of a tree node block exceeds both the bottom and the right picture boundaries, If the block is a QT node and the size of the block is larger than the minimum QT size, the block is forced to be split with QT split mode.).
Gao discloses wherein the inferred splitting type is quadtree if the current block is an out-of-bounds node and a split depth of the current block is equal to 0 ([Abstract] CTUs on the boundary are hierarchically partitioned. [0065] the partitioning is performed hierarchically, starting from the CTU (hierarchy depth 0) [0100] Both in the patent [WO2016090568] with QTBT structure and in VTM-1.0, the boundary CTU/CU forced partition process is inherited from HEVC. This means that CTU/CU located on the frame boundary, and in particular, a CTU/CU through which the boundary runs so that parts of the CTU/CU are outside the picture/frame (in this disclosure, such CTUs / CUs are also referred to respectively as “boundary CTUs” and “boundary CUs”), is first forced partitioned by quadtree (QT) structure without rate-distortion (RD) optimization until the whole current CU lying inside the slice/picture boundary.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Chen with the teachings that the CTUs that have a depth of 0 that are partially outside of the picture are all first forced partitioned by quadtree (QT split) as taught by Gao. The motivation behind this modification would have been to provide for flexibly selecting from different modes by using quad tree splitting in the hierarchical splitting of the boundary CTU [See Gao].
In regards to claim 3, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Chen discloses wherein the predefined size is a pipeline unit size, maximum transform size, a multiple of the maximum transform size, 64x64 luma samples, or 128x128 luma samples ([Section 3.2.3] If a portion of a tree node block exceeds the bottom picture boundaries and if the block is a QT node, and the size of the block is larger than the minimum QT size, and the size of the block is larger than the maximum BT size, the block is forced to be split with QT split mode. [Section 3.2.2] Maximum BT size is set as 128x128).
In regards to claim 4, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Chen fails to explicitly disclose wherein information about the inferred splitting type is not parsed or signaled.
Gao discloses wherein information about the inferred splitting type is not parsed or signaled ([0100] Both in the patent [WO2016090568] with QTBT structure and in VTM-1.0, the boundary CTU/CU forced partition process is inherited from HEVC. This means that CTU/CU located on the frame boundary, and in particular, a CTU/CU through which the boundary runs so that parts of the CTU/CU are outside the picture/frame (in this disclosure, such CTUs / CUs are also referred to respectively as “boundary CTUs” and “boundary CUs”), is first forced partitioned by quadtree (QT) structure without rate-distortion (RD) optimization until the whole current CU lying inside the slice/picture boundary. These forced partitions are no needed to be signaled in the bitstream.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Chen with the teachings that forced partitions do not need to be signaled in the bitstream as taught by Gao. The motivation behind this modification would have been to provide for flexibly selecting from different modes by using quad tree splitting in the hierarchical splitting of the boundary CTU [See Gao].
Claim 5 lists all the same elements of claim 1, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 5.
In regards to claim 6, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Chen discloses wherein the first splitting type is applied to the current block ([Section 3.2.3] If a portion of a tree node block exceeds both the bottom and the right picture boundaries, If the block is a QT node and the size of the block is larger than the minimum QT size, the block is forced to be split with QT split mode.).
Gao discloses wherein the first splitting type is applied to the current block with a partition depth of 0 ([Abstract] CTUs on the boundary are hierarchically partitioned. [0065] the partitioning is performed hierarchically, starting from the CTU (hierarchy depth 0)) in an inter slice, picture, or tile or in an intra slice, picture, or tile ([0100] Both in the patent [WO2016090568] with QTBT structure and in VTM-1.0, the boundary CTU/CU forced partition process is inherited from HEVC. This means that CTU/CU located on the frame boundary, and in particular, a CTU/CU through which the boundary runs so that parts of the CTU/CU are outside the picture/frame (in this disclosure, such CTUs / CUs are also referred to respectively as “boundary CTUs” and “boundary CUs”), is first forced partitioned by quadtree (QT) structure without rate-distortion (RD) optimization until the whole current CU lying inside the slice/picture boundary. These forced partitions are no needed to be signaled in the bitstream.).
Chuang discloses wherein the first splitting type is applied to the current block ([0135] According to certain techniques of this disclosure, video encoder 20 and video decoder 30 may implement a pre-defined manner of splitting for all CTUs that span across a picture boundary. Because the splitting structure of cross-picture CTUs is predefined in these examples, video encoder 20 may not signal tree-type information until the partitioning results in all samples of each CU being located within the current picture. [0176] In some such examples, the processing circuitry of video decoder 30 may determine that a coding tree unit (CTU) of the video data spans a picture boundary such that a size of the CTU extends beyond a padding region of a current picture, and based on the CTU spanning the picture boundary, the processing circuitry of video decoder 30 may recursively partition the CTU using a predetermined partitioning scheme of the multi-type tree structure to form a plurality of coding units (CUs) that includes the current CU, such that the current CU is positioned entirely within the current picture.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Chen with the teachings that the CTUs that have a depth of 0 that are partially outside of the picture are all first forced partitioned by quadtree (QT split) as taught by Gao. The motivation behind this modification would have been to provide for flexibly selecting from different modes by using quad tree splitting in the hierarchical splitting of the boundary CTU [See Gao].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Chen with the teachings that all CTUs across a picture boundary are split in a pre-defined manner as taught by Chuang. The motivation behind this modification would have been to improve the efficiency of the video device through the implementation of not signalling a splitting method for each CU located out outside of the current picture which would enhance the signalling efficiency with respect to the block partitioning structures [See Chuang].
In regards to claim 7, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Chen discloses wherein the inferred splitting type applied to the first splitting type of the current block if the current block is an out-of-bounds node ([Section 3.2.3] If a portion of a tree node block exceeds both the bottom and the right picture boundaries, If the block is a QT node and the size of the block is larger than the minimum QT size, the block is forced to be split with QT split mode.).
Gao discloses wherein the inferred splitting type applied to the first splitting type of the current block if the current block is an out-of-bounds node with a partition depth of 0 in an inter slice, picture, or tile ([Abstract] CTUs on the boundary are hierarchically partitioned. [0065] the partitioning is performed hierarchically, starting from the CTU (hierarchy depth 0) [0100] Both in the patent [WO2016090568] with QTBT structure and in VTM-1.0, the boundary CTU/CU forced partition process is inherited from HEVC. This means that CTU/CU located on the frame boundary, and in particular, a CTU/CU through which the boundary runs so that parts of the CTU/CU are outside the picture/frame (in this disclosure, such CTUs / CUs are also referred to respectively as “boundary CTUs” and “boundary CUs”), is first forced partitioned by quadtree (QT) structure without rate-distortion (RD) optimization until the whole current CU lying inside the slice/picture boundary.).
Chuang discloses wherein the inferred splitting type applied to the first splitting type of the current block if the current block is an out-of-bounds node with a partition depth of 0 in an inter slice, picture, or tile and the current block is larger than the predefined size is the same with the inferred splitting type applied to the first splitting type of the current block if the current block is an out-of-bounds node with a partition depth of 0 in an intra slice, picture, or tile and the current block is larger than the predefined size ([0135] According to certain techniques of this disclosure, video encoder 20 and video decoder 30 may implement a pre-defined manner of splitting for all CTUs that span across a picture boundary. Because the splitting structure of cross-picture CTUs is predefined in these examples, video encoder 20 may not signal tree-type information until the partitioning results in all samples of each CU being located within the current picture. [0176] In some such examples, the processing circuitry of video decoder 30 may determine that a coding tree unit (CTU) of the video data spans a picture boundary such that a size of the CTU extends beyond a padding region of a current picture, and based on the CTU spanning the picture boundary, the processing circuitry of video decoder 30 may recursively partition the CTU using a predetermined partitioning scheme of the multi-type tree structure to form a plurality of coding units (CUs) that includes the current CU, such that the current CU is positioned entirely within the current picture.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Chen with the teachings that the CTUs that have a depth of 0 that are partially outside of the picture are all first forced partitioned by quadtree (QT split) as taught by Gao. The motivation behind this modification would have been to provide for flexibly selecting from different modes by using quad tree splitting in the hierarchical splitting of the boundary CTU [See Gao].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Chen with the teachings that all CTUs across a picture boundary are split in a pre-defined manner as taught by Chuang. The motivation behind this modification would have been to improve the efficiency of the video device through the implementation of not signalling a splitting method for each CU located out outside of the current picture which would enhance the signalling efficiency with respect to the block partitioning structures [See Chuang].
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kaitlin A Retallick whose telephone number is (571)270-3841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/KAITLIN A RETALLICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482