DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the arguments and amendments dated July 30, 2026. Claims 1-6, 12-16, and 20-28 are pending and are examined.
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 Amendment
The amendments made to original claims 2, 5, 12-13, 15, and 20-28 have been fully considered.
The previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 with respect to claims 5, 15, 22, 25, and 28 is withdrawn.
The previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 with respect to claims 20-22 is withdrawn.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments and amendments received July 30, 2026 have been fully considered.
With regard to 35. U.S.C. 112, Applicant argues that ISP mode information/partitioning direction may be derived based on the size of the target block, as described in paragraph 816. Applicant also argues that block shape includes the ratio of length to width as described in paragraphs 833 and 836. Thus, Applicant argues that its specification describes that ISP mode information/partitioning direction may be derived based on this ratio. However, as explained in the prior action, paragraphs 833 and 836 are not directed to partitioning direction, they are directed to the availability of ISP. The availability of ISP and the partitioning direction, Applicant itself argues are different in its response (p. 18). Thus, paragraphs 833 and 836 do not describe determining partitioning direction based on such a ratio. If Applicant is arguing that these paragraphs define target block size/shape as it would have been understood to one of skill in the art – as including 1) horizontal length, 2) vertical length, 3) the difference between the horizontal length and the vertical length, and 4) the ratio of the horizontal length to the vertical length, then Applicant cannot also argue that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted one of these measurements (e.g., length or width – as described in Ramasubramonian) with another (e.g., ratio).
For the purposes of this Action and in response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner will presume that block size/shape is defined in Applicant’s specification in accordance with paragraphs 833 and 836. Accordingly, the rejection with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112 for claims 1, 12, 20, and 26 and the associated claim interpretation is withdrawn.
With regard to 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to disclose one of a horizontal partitioning mode and a vertical partitioning mode is selected for the current block using an indicator in a case that the bitstream comprises the indicator indicating a direction of partitioning for the current block, and one of the horizontal partitioning mode and the vertical partitioning mode is selected for the current block according to a ratio between a horizontal size of the current block and a vertical size of the current block in a case that the bitstream does not comprise the indicator indicating the direction of the partitioning for the current block. Specifically, Applicant argues that Ramasubramonian fails to disclose determining the use of ISP or the number of partitions based on the ratio between horizontal and vertical sizes of the current block, but instead, compares the horizontal and vertical sizes of the current block with a threshold and that Lee does not cure this deficiency because it relates the height-to-width ratio to the availability or number/shape of ISP sub-partitions rather than to selecting the partitioning direction when an indicator is absent. Applicant argues that the availability or number of ISP partitions is distinct from determining the direction of partitioning, thus combining Ramasubramonian and Lee would not result in the selecting of horizontal or vertical partitioning mode according to such a ratio.
RESPONSE
Ultimately, these have been considered but they are directed to new claim interpretations, which are addressed below. See the rejection below for how the prior art of record in view of a newly added reference reads on the newly amended language as well as the examiner's interpretation of the cited art in view of the presented claim set.
Applicant also argues that the cited prior art fails to disclose the maximum transform block has a non-square shape. This language corresponds to the newly amended language of claims 5, 15, 22, 25, and 28.
As such, these have been considered but they are directed to newly amended language, which is addressed below. See the rejection below for how the prior art of record in view of a newly added reference reads on the newly amended language as well as the examiner's interpretation of the cited art in view of the presented claim set.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 5-6, and 12, 15-16, 23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0252608 (“Ramasubramonian”), which corresponds to a priority application dated February 2019 in view of the level of skill in the art, in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0306654 (“Lee”), which corresponds to priority applications dated October 2018 and January 2019.
With respect to claim 1, Ramasubramonian discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including:
A video decoding method using a bitstream, comprising:
generating a prediction block of a current block by performing prediction for the current block (see Title, Figs. 1, 11, items 112, 116, 81, ¶¶251-257, describing a prediction processing unit that generates prediction data, i.e., a prediction block, for a video block, i.e., current block, by performing prediction for that video block); and
performing decoding for the current block using the prediction block (see citations with respect to element above describing that this method includes decoding the current video block using the predictive/prediction block),
wherein
one of a horizontal partitioning mode and a vertical partitioning mode is selected for the current block using an indicator in a case that the bitstream comprises the indicator indicating a direction of partitioning for the current block (see ¶¶72, 137, 154-160, 165-170, 210-212, describing that an ISP split flag (which indicates horizontal partitioning mode or vertical partitioning mode) may be signaled/present in an encoded bitstream for a current block, i.e., in a case that the bitstream comprises the indicator indicating a direction of partitioning for the current block, and that based on this split flag, horizontal or vertical partitioning is selected), and
one of the horizontal partitioning mode and the vertical partitioning mode is selected for the current block according to [] a horizontal size of the current block and a vertical size of the current block in a case that the bitstream does not comprise the indicator indicating the direction of partitioning for the current block (see citations with respect to element above and ¶¶23, 30-33, 72, 142-143, 149, 156-158, 165-166, 174-176, describing that the ISP split flag (which indicates horizontal partitioning mode or vertical partitioning mode and thereby the direction of partitioning for the current block), if it is not signaled/present in the bitstream, may be selected for the current block according to the width and/or height of the current block).
Ramasubramonian does not explicitly disclose that the split flag/partitioning direction is selected according to a ratio between the horizontal size of the current block and vertical size of the current block.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses that it was known to measure block size by a ratio between horizontal size of the current block and vertical size of the current block (see ¶¶327-331, 521-522, describing that the use of block size aspect ratio (i.e., the ratio between horizontal size and vertical size of the current block) was a known an alternative to block width or height at the time of filing; see also Applicant’s Specification at ¶¶833, 836 confirming that width, height, and such a ratio were known alternatives for indicating block size).
As detailed above, Ramasubramonian details the use of ISP, that the direction/type of ISP may be signaled or inferred, and, if inferred, determined based on block size, e.g., block width and height (see citations above). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the potential alternatives to width and height for assessing block size, including, as evidenced by Lee (and by Applicant’s Specification at ¶¶833, 836), whratio. Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, using whratio to determine ISP split type/direction, in the coding system of Ramasubramonian, instead of block width or block height would have represented nothing more than the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a mechanism for selecting vertical or horizontal partitioning based on the whratio of the block instead of block width or height in the coding system of Ramasubramonian, as taught by Lee.
With respect to claim 5, Ramasubramonian discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Ramasubramonian in view of Lee discloses each and every element of independent claim 1. Ramasubramonian/Lee additionally discloses:
wherein:
whether the partitioning in a first direction is applied to the current block is determined based on a first comparison and a second comparison in a case that the bitstream does not comprise the indicator,
the partitioning in a second direction is applied to the current block in a case that it is determined that the partitioning in the first direction is not applied,
the first comparison is a comparison between the horizontal size of the current block and the horizontal size of a maximum transform block,
the second comparison is a comparison is a comparison between the vertical size of the current block and the vertical size of the maximum transform block, and
the maximum transform block has a non-square shape (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above and Ramasubramonian Figs. 2-3, ¶¶129 (and table 2 thereafter), 130, 141-143, 149, 154, 156-161, 165-169, 172-175 (and tables thereafter), 210-212, describing that, when an indicator/flag indicating the partitioning direction (e.g., split flag or split type) is not signaled, i.e., the bitstream does not comprise the indicator, the decoder may infer/determine such a split flag/type (and thereby whether to use vertical or horizontal partitioning) based on comparing both the horizontal size/width of the current block to the maximum transform block horizontal size (MaxTbSize/MaxTbSizeY) and the vertical size/width of the current block to the maximum transform block vertical size (also MaxTbSize/MaxTbSizeY - Y representing luma, not vertical), e.g., where 64x64 is the maximum transform block size – MaxTbSizeY is 64; see also ¶¶85, 153, 194, describing that the TU/transform block may be non-square, that the maximum transform block is square in “some examples”, and that the constraints may be based on the width or height of a VDPU, which may have unequal width and height).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 5.
With respect to claim 6, Ramasubramonian discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Ramasubramonian in view of Lee discloses each and every element of dependent claim 5. Ramasubramonian/Lee additionally discloses:
wherein: the first direction is one of a horizontal direction and a vertical direction, and the second direction is the other of the horizontal direction and the vertical direction (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 1 and 5 above, describing that the potential split directions are horizontal and vertical).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 6.
With respect to claim 12, Ramasubramonian discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Ramasubramonian in view of Lee discloses each and every element of independent claim 1. Ramasubramonian/Lee additionally discloses:
A video encoding method, comprising:
generating a prediction block for a current block by performing prediction for the current block (see Fig. 10, item 41, ¶¶84, 87, 92, 97-98, 245, 248, describing encoding by generating a prediction block); and
performing encoding for the current block using the prediction block to generate a bitstream (see Figs. 1, 10, items 104, 106, 41, ¶¶237-248, describing an encoder that uses a prediction module to encode the current block using a prediction block for a current block and generate an encoded bitstream for transmission to the decoder),
wherein
an indicator indicates which one of a horizontal partitioning mode and a vertical partitioning mode which is selected for the current block in a case that the bitstream comprises the indicator indicating a direction of partitioning for the current block (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above), and
one of the horizontal partitioning mode and the vertical partitioning mode is selected for the current block according to a ratio between a horizontal size of the current block and a vertical size of the current block in a case that the bitstream does not comprise the indicator indicating the direction of the partitioning for the current block (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 12.
With respect to claim 15, Ramasubramonian discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Ramasubramonian in view of Lee discloses each and every element of independent claim 12. Ramasubramonian/Lee additionally discloses:
wherein:
whether the partitioning in a first direction is applied to the current block is determined based on a first comparison and a second comparison in a case that the bitstream does not comprise the indicator,
the partitioning in a second direction is applied to the current block in a case that it is determined that the partitioning in the first direction is not applied,
the first comparison is a comparison between the horizontal size of the current block and a horizontal size of a maximum transform block,
the second comparison is a comparison is a comparison between the vertical size of the current block and a vertical size of the maximum transform block, and
the maximum transform block has a non-square shape (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 12 and 5 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 15.
With respect to claim 16, Ramasubramonian discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Ramasubramonian in view of Lee discloses each and every element of dependent claim 15. Ramasubramonian/Lee additionally discloses:
wherein: the first direction is one of a horizontal direction and a vertical direction, and the second direction is the other of the horizontal direction and the vertical direction (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 15 and 6 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 16.
With respect to claim 20, claim 20 recites the elements of claim 1 in non-transitory computer- readable medium storing a bitstream, when processed by a video decoding apparatus causes the video decoding apparatus to performing decoding on the current block. Ramasubramonian recites that its method includes a non-transitory computer-readable medium and processor (see ¶¶10, 32, 225, 230-234, 247, 259-260) for executing the invention and the generation of, storing (at least temporarily), and sending of a bitstream to the video decoding apparatus and that this bitstream information is used to cause the decoder to perform the video decoding (see Fig. 11, item “encoded video bitstream”, ¶¶30-34).
With respect to claim 22, claim 22 recites the elements of claim 5 in non-transitory computer- readable medium storing a bitstream, when processed by a video decoding apparatus causes the video decoding apparatus to performing decoding on the current block. Ramasubramonian recites that its method includes a non-transitory computer-readable medium and processor (see ¶¶10, 32, 225, 230-234, 247, 259-260) for executing the invention and the generation of, storing (at least temporarily), and sending of a bitstream to the video decoding apparatus and that this bitstream information is used to cause the decoder to perform the video decoding (see Fig. 11, item “encoded video bitstream”, ¶¶30-34).
With respect to claim 23, claim 23 recites the elements of claim 1 with the addition of sending a bitstream to the video decoding apparatus wherein the bitstream information is used to perform the method steps of claim 1. Ramasubramonian recites that its method includes the sending of a bitstream to the video decoding apparatus and that this bitstream information is used to perform the video decoding (see Fig. 11, item “encoded video bitstream”, ¶¶30-34).
With respect to claim 26, claim 26 recites the elements of claim 1 in computer-readable medium form rather than method form. Ramasubramonian recites that its method may be implemented by a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing instructions executed by the processor (see ¶¶10, 32, 225, 230-234, 247, 259-260). Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 1 also applies to claim 26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2-4, 13-14, 24-25, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasubramonian in view of Lee and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0409765 (“De Luxan Hernandez”), which corresponds to a priority application dated March 2019.
With respect to claim 2, Ramasubramonian discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Ramasubramonian in view of Lee discloses each and every element of independent claim 1.
Ramasubramonian/Lee does not explicitly describe the transmission of MPM information, i.e., it does not disclose wherein Most Probable Mode (MPM) information representing whether an MPM mode is used for the current block is received via the bitstream, and wherein the MPM information is received irrespective of a signal related to Intra Sub-Partitions (ISP) for the current block.
However, in the same field of endeavor, De Luxan Hernandez discloses that it was known to send MPM information irrespective of ISP mode:
wherein Most Probable Mode (MPM) information representing whether an MPM mode is used for the current block is received via the bitstream, and
wherein the MPM information is received irrespective of a signal related to Intra Sub-Partitions (ISP) for the current block (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above and ¶¶122-123, describing the use of a MPM usage flag is transmitted from encoder to decoder, i.e., wherein MPM information representing whether a MPM mode is used for the current block is received via a bitstream, and that the MPM flag may be signaled irrespective of whether ISP is used, i.e., wherein the MPM information is received irrespective of a signal related to ISP for the current block; see citations and arguments with respect to claim 2 above, describing that the MPM information may be received irrespective of a signal related to the ISP - ¶123 states that this ISP information may be a flag 114 indicating partitioning direction, ¶146 also describes that ISP may be indicated by a flag).
As detailed above, Ramasubramonian details the use of ISP, but does not describe in detail its interaction with MPMs. However, De Luxan Hernandez details ISP and its use with MPMs, describing that the system may infer the MPM information based on ISP use OR that the MPM info may be received irrespective of the usage/application of ISP (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 2 above). Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, receiving MPM information irrespective of the usage/application of ISP, in the coding system of Ramasubramonian would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to achieve predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a mechanism for receiving MPM information irrespective of the ISP signal for the current block in the coding system of Ramasubramonian/Lee, as taught by De Luxan Hernandez.
With respect to claim 3, Ramasubramonian discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Ramasubramonian in view of Lee and De Luxan Hernandez discloses each and every element of dependent claim 2. Ramasubramonian/Lee /De Luxan Hernandez additionally discloses:
wherein the signal related to the ISP is a signal indicating whether the ISP is applied to the current block (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 2 above, describing that the MPM information may be received irrespective of a signal related to the ISP – De Luxan Hernandez ¶123 states that this ISP information may be a flag 114 indicating partitioning direction, ¶146 also describes that ISP may be indicated by a flag).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 2 also apply to claim 3.
With respect to claim 4, Ramasubramonian discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Ramasubramonian in view of Lee and De Luxan Hernandez discloses each and every element of dependent claim 2. Ramasubramonian/Lee/De Luxan Hernandez additionally discloses:
wherein:
the ISP partitions the current block into two or four subblocks by applying horizontal partitioning or vertical partitioning to the current block, and applies a same intra prediction mode to the subblocks (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 2 above and Ramasubramonian, Abstract, Figs. 2-3, ¶¶119-122, showing and describing that the ISP may partition the target block into 2 or 4 subblocks by applying horizontal or vertical partitioning and the same intra prediction mode cycles through these sub-blocks, i.e., is applied to the sub-blocks).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 2 also apply to claim 4.
With respect to claim 13, Ramasubramonian discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Ramasubramonian in view of Lee discloses each and every element of independent claim 12 and Ramasubramonian in view of Lee and De Luxan Hernandez discloses each and every element of dependent claim 2, the combination of which is incorporated herein. Ramasubramonian/Lee/De Luxan Hernandez additionally discloses:
wherein:
Most Probable Mode (MPM) information representing whether an MPM mode is used for the current block is generated, and
wherein the MPM information is comprised in the bitstream irrespective of a signal related to Intra Sub-Partitions (ISP) for the current block, and
wherein the signal related to the ISP is a signal indicating whether the ISP is applied to the current block (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 12 and 2 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 2 also apply to claim 13.
With respect to claim 14, Ramasubramonian discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Ramasubramonian in view of Lee and De Luxan Hernandez discloses each and every element of dependent claim 13. Ramasubramonian/Lee/De Luxan Hernandez additionally discloses:
wherein:
the ISP partitions the current block into two or four subblocks by applying horizontal partitioning or vertical partitioning to the current block, and applies a same intra prediction mode to the subblocks (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 13 and 4 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 2 also apply to claim 14.
With respect to claim 21, claim 21 recites the elements of claim 2 in non-transitory computer- readable medium storing a bitstream, when processed by a video decoding apparatus causes the video decoding apparatus to performing decoding on the current block. Ramasubramonian recites that its method includes a non-transitory computer-readable medium and processor (see ¶¶10, 32, 225, 230-234, 247, 259-260) for executing the invention and the generation of, storing (at least temporarily), and sending of a bitstream to the video decoding apparatus and that this bitstream information is used to cause the decoder to perform the video decoding (see Fig. 11, item “encoded video bitstream”, ¶¶30-34).
With respect to claim 24, claim 24 recites the elements of claim 2 with the addition of sending a bitstream to the video decoding apparatus wherein the bitstream information is used to perform the method steps of claim 2. Ramasubramonian recites that its method includes the sending of a bitstream to the video decoding apparatus and that this bitstream information is used to perform the video decoding (see Fig. 11, item “encoded video bitstream”, ¶¶30-34).
With respect to claim 25, claim 25 recites the elements of claims 24 and 5. Accordingly, see the disclosures cited with respect to claims 24 and 5. As detailed above, Ramasubramonian recites that its method includes the sending of a bitstream to the video decoding apparatus and that this bitstream information is used to perform the video decoding (see Fig. 11, item “encoded video bitstream”, ¶¶30-34).
With respect to claim 27, claim 27 recites the elements of claim 2 in computer-readable medium form rather than method form. Ramasubramonian recites that its method may be implemented by a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing instructions executed by the processor (see ¶¶10, 32, 225, 230-234, 247, 259-260). Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 2 also applies to claim 27.
With respect to claim 28, claim 28 recites the elements of claims 27 and 5 in computer-readable medium form rather than method form. Ramasubramonian recites that its method may be implemented by a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing instructions executed by the processor (see ¶¶10, 32, 225, 230-234, 247, 259-260). Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claims 27 and 5 also apply to claim 28.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY JANE KILE UHL whose telephone number is (571)270-0337. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 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, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. 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.
LINDSAY J UHL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481
/LINDSAY J UHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights