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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 12/20/2024 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. US 12022073 B2 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Lee in view of LIM discloses generating a second coding unit with the height width ratio of 1:4 by ternary splitting the first coding unit, a height of the first coding unit and a width of the first coding unit being the same, and decoding the second coding unit, when the ternary split of the first coding unit is allowed, ... wherein a height or a width of the second coding unit with the height width ratio of 1:4 is within a range between the largest size of the coding unit with the height width ratio of 1:4 and a smallest size of the coding unit with the height width ratio of 1:4:
LEE:
[0070] When the size of a coding block falls within a second predetermined range, the coding block can be partitioned only by binary-tree partitioning or ternary-tree partitioning.
[0168] A prediction block may be a rectangular block having a size of 2×8, 4×16 etc. The prediction blocks may be generated by ternary splitting.
Figure 3 also shows an example of an 8*32 coding unit with the height width ratio of 1:4 generated by ternary splitting a 32*32 coding unit. The 8*32 coding unit is a ratio 1:4 CU generated when the 32*32 square coding unit is ternary split. The 8*32 coding unit is a PU when it is no longer split for prediction.
LIM: [0289]-[0290]; [0295] log 2_cu_14_ratio_max_minus2: a maximal allowed size of a 1:4 or 4:1 CU (longer side); [0296] log 2_cu_14_ratio_min_minus2: a minimal allowed size of a 1:4 or 4:1 CU (longer side); [0311]-[0312].
It is obvious to limit a height or a width of the second coding unit with the height width ratio of 1:4 generated by ternary splitting within a range between the largest size of the coding unit with the height width ratio of 1:4 and a smallest size of the coding unit with the height width ratio of 1:4 defined by LIM.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al. (US 20200204799 A1) in view of LIM et al. (US 20210368172 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3. LEE et al. (US 20200204799 A1) discloses A video decoding method (abstract, An image encoding/decoding method and apparatus; [0054] an image may mean a picture configuring a video, or may mean the video itself) comprising:
obtaining, from a bitstream, information about a largest size of a coding unit and information about a smallest size of the coding unit (figure 3, [0133] an image 300 is sequentially partitioned in a largest coding unit (LCU), and a LCU unit is determined as a partition structure. Herein, the LCU may be used in the same meaning as a coding tree unit (CTU); [0110] A coding parameter may include information (flag, index, etc.) such as syntax element that is encoded in an encoder and signaled to a decoder. For example, information on a CTU size, information on a minimum block size, information on a maximum block size);
obtaining, from the bitstream, information about a largest size of a block allowed to be ternary split, information about a smallest size of the block allowed to be ternary split ([0156] the maximum size of a ternary tree and the minimum size of the ternary tree may be signaled at the slice level);
determining the largest size of the coding unit using the information about the largest size of the coding unit ([0110] A coding parameter may include information (flag, index, etc.) such as syntax element that is encoded in an encoder and signaled to a decoder. For example, information on a CTU size, information on a maximum block size), and determining the smallest size of the coding unit using the information about the smallest size of the coding unit ([0110] A coding parameter may include information (flag, index, etc.) such as syntax element that is encoded in an encoder and signaled to a decoder. For example, information on a minimum block size);
determining whether to allow ternary split of a first coding unit, based on whether a size of the first coding unit is not greater than the largest size of the block allowed to be ternary split, and based on whether the size of the first coding unit is not smaller than the smallest size of the block allowed to be ternary split ([0070] When the size of a coding block falls within a second predetermined range, the coding block can be partitioned only by binary-tree partitioning or ternary-tree partitioning);
when the ternary split of the first coding unit is allowed, generating a second coding unit with the height width ratio of 1:4 by ternary splitting the first coding unit, a height of the first coding unit and a width of the first coding unit being the same (figure 3; [0068] The unit may have various sizes and forms, and particularly, the form of the unit may be a two-dimensional geometrical figure such as a square shape, …), and decoding the second coding unit ([0070] When the size of a coding block falls within a second predetermined range, the coding block can be partitioned only by binary-tree partitioning or ternary-tree partitioning; [0168] A prediction block may be a rectangular block having a size of 2×8, 4×16 etc.; Figure 3 also shows an example of an 8*32 coding unit with the height width ratio of 1:4 generated by ternary splitting a 32*32 coding unit. The 8*32 coding unit is a ratio 1:4 CU generated when the 32*32 square coding unit is ternary split); and
when the first coding unit is not split into smaller coding units, decoding the first coding unit ([0070] When the size of a coding block falls within a second predetermined range, the coding block can be partitioned only by binary-tree partitioning or ternary-tree partitioning, inherently, when not, no splitting is applied).
Furthermore, LEE et al. (US 20200204799 A1) discloses determining the largest size of the block allowed to be binary split by subtracting the information about the largest size of the block allowed to be binary split from the size of the coding unit ([0155] Information of the maximum size of the coding units corresponding to the respective nodes of a binary tree (hereinafter, referred to as a maximum size of a binary tree) may be determined based on the size of the coding tree unit and the difference information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of LEE, to apply the signaling technique used in binary tree to ternary tree, to signal the difference between the largest/smallest size of the coding unit and the largest/smallest size of the block allowed to be ternary split, but not to signal the largest/smallest size of the block allowed to be ternary split, in order to reduce the overhead of the syntaxes.
LIM et al. (US 20210368172 A1) discloses
obtaining information about a largest size of a coding unit with a height width ratio of 1:4 ([0289]-[0290], [0295] log 2_cu_14_ratio_max_minus2: a maximal allowed size of a 1:4 or 4:1 CU (longer side));
wherein a height or a width of the second coding unit with the height width ratio of 1:4 is within a range between the largest size of the coding unit with the height width ratio of 1:4 and a smallest size of the coding unit with the height width ratio of 1:4 ([0289]-[0290]; [0295] log 2_cu_14_ratio_max_minus2: a maximal allowed size of a 1:4 or 4:1 CU (longer side); [0296] log 2_cu_14_ratio_min_minus2: a minimal allowed size of a 1:4 or 4:1 CU (longer side); [0311]-[0312]).
Moreover, LEE discloses
determining the largest size of a block, based on difference information about the largest size of the block and a size of a coding unit ([0155] Difference information between the size of a CTU and the maximum size of a transformation block may be signaled or determined at an upper level of the coding unit. Information of the maximum size of the coding units corresponding to the respective nodes of a binary tree (hereinafter, referred to as a maximum size of a binary tree) may be determined based on the size of the coding tree unit and the difference information). LIM et al. (US 20210368172 A1) also discloses the similar signaling technique in [0174].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of LEE and LIM, to apply the LEE’s teaching to a largest size of a coding unit with a height width ratio of 1:4, to signal the difference between the largest size of a coding unit with a height width ratio of 1:4 and the largest size of the coding unit, and to determine the largest size of the coding unit with the height width ratio of 1:4 by subtracting the difference information about the largest size of the coding unit with the height width ratio of 1:4 from the largest size of the coding unit, in order to efficiently code the size by reducing the overhead of the syntaxes; and to limit a height or a width of the second coding unit with the height width ratio of 1:4 within a range between the largest size of the coding unit with the height width ratio of 1:4 and a smallest size of the coding unit with the height width ratio of 1:4.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 XIAOLAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-7580. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. to Fri. 9am-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, SATH V. PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on (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.
/XIAOLAN XU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488