DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment dated September 15, 2025. 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 1-13 have been fully considered.
In light of these amendments, the previous double patenting rejection is withdrawn.
The previous claim objections are also withdrawn.
The previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) is also withdrawn.
The previous rejection with respect to claim 20 is withdrawn.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments and amendments received September 15, 2025 have been fully considered.
With regard to 35 U.S.C. § 102, Applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to disclose that in the absence of an explicitly signaled indicator, the partitioning direction is determined implicitly and that first, it is determined - based on the blocks horizontal and vertical dimensions - whether partitioning in the first direction is to be applied and if not, partitioning in the second direction is applied. This language corresponds to the newly amended language of claims 1, 12, 20, 23, and 26.
As such, these have been considered but they are directed to newly amended language, which is addressed below. See the rejection below for how 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 Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: “prediciton” should read “prediction”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 and the claims dependent therefrom are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 20 recites “a method to generate the non-transitory computer readable recording medium” but proceeds to describe a method for video coding, not for the generation of a storage medium itself. Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01.
For similar reasons, Claim 20 and the claims dependent therefrom 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The specification contains no description at all of how to generate a computer-readable recording medium itself.
Applicant is encouraged to amend the preamble in accordance with the described coding method and the appropriate patentable subject matter.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because by attempting to claim “program instructions” it attempts to recite a computer program per se (see MPEP 2106.03(I).) If Applicant is attempting to claim “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program instructions for transmitting a bitstream, the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:…”. Then Applicant should amend the claim accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 5-6, and 12, 15-16, 20, and 23 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.
With respect to claim 1, Ramasubramonian discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including:
A video decoding method, 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
an indicator indicates 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 (see ¶¶30-34, 137, 154-160, 165-170, 210-212, describing determining if an ISP split flag (which indicates horizontal partitioning mode or vertical partitioning mode) is present in the video bitstream for a current block),
whether the partitioning in a first direction is applied to the current block is determined based on 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 (see ¶¶, describing that if such a flag is not present in the bitstream, the split flag/split type (intra_subpartitions_split_flag/IntraSubPartitionsSplitType) is inferred/determined based on the width and/or height of the current block, i.e., in a case that the bitstream does not comprise the indicator, the partitioning direction applied to the current block is determined based on the horizontal or vertical size of the current block), and
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 (see citations and arguments with respect to claim element above, describing that if partitioning in the vertical direction is not applied to the current block, partitioning in the horizontal direction is applied).
With respect to claim 5, Ramasubramonian additionally teaches:
wherein:
a shape of partitioning for the current block is determined based on a horizontal size of a maximum transform block and a vertical size of the maximum transform block (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above and Figs. 2-3, ¶¶129, 140, 164, describing that the decoder divides the block into sub-partitions in a particular direction based on whether the current block width/height is greater than or less than a maximum transform block size MaxTbSizeY and that MaxTbSizeY (Y representing luma, not vertical) represents a maximum transform block size used for a width and height threshold, e.g., where 64x64 is the maximum transform block size – MaxTbSizeY is 64, i.e., the shape is determined based on the horizontal and vertical size of the maximum transform block).
With respect to claim 6, Ramasubramonian additionally teaches:
wherein the shape of the partitioning is determined based on a comparison between the horizontal size of the current block and a horizontal size of the maximum transform block and a comparison between the vertical size of the current block and a vertical size of the maximum transform block (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 5 above, describing that the partition shape is determined based on the comparison between the horizontal size of the current block, e.g., CbWidth, and a horizontal size of the maximum transform block, e.g., MaxTbSizeY, and a comparison between the vertical size of the current block, e.g., CbHeight, and a vertical size of the maximum transform block, MaxTbSizeY).
With respect to claim 12, Ramasubramonian additionally teaches:
A video encoding method, comprising generating a prediction block for a current block by performing prediction for the current 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 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 (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
whether the partitioning in a first direction is applied to the current block is determined based on 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 (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above), and
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 (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above).
With respect to claim 15, additionally teaches:
wherein:
a shape of partitioning for the current block is determined based on a horizontal size of a maximum transform block and a vertical size of the maximum transform block (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 12 and 5 above).
With respect to claim 16, Ramasubramonian additionally teaches:
wherein the shape of the partitioning is determined based on a comparison between the horizontal size of the current block and the horizontal size of the maximum transform block and a comparison between a vertical size of the current block and a vertical size of the maximum transform block (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 15 and 6 above).
With respect to claim 20, claim 20 appears to attempt to recite the elements of claim 12 in computer-readable medium form instead of method form (see rejection under 35 USC 112 above). Ramasubramonian details that its method may be embodied by a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by a processor (see ¶¶10, 32, 225, 230-234, 247, 259-260). Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 12 also applies to claim 20.
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).
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 2-4, 13-14, 21-22 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasubramonian 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 the level of skill in the art discloses each and every element of independent claim 1.
Ramasubramonian does not explicitly describe the transmission of MPM information, i.e., it does not disclose wherein Most Probable Mode (MPM) information representing whether a 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 a 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, 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 De Luxan Hernandez discloses each and every element of dependent claim 2. Ramasubramonian/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 - ¶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 De Luxan Hernandez discloses each and every element of dependent claim 2. Ramasubramonian/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 teaches each and every element of independent claim 12 and Ramasubramonian in view of De Luxan Hernandez discloses each and every element of dependent claim 2, the combination of which is incorporated herein. Ramasubramonian/De Luxan Hernandez additionally discloses:
wherein:
Most Probable Mode (MPM) information representing whether a 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 De Luxan Hernandez discloses each and every element of dependent claim 13. Ramasubramonian/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 appears to attempt to recite the elements of claim 13 in computer-readable medium form instead of method form (see rejection under 35 USC 112 above). Ramasubramonian details that its method may be embodied by a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by a processor (see ¶¶10, 32, 225, 230-234, 247, 259-260). Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 13 also applies to claim 21.
With respect to claim 22, claim 22 appears to attempt to recite the elements of claim 14 in computer-readable medium form instead of method form (see rejection under 35 USC 112 above). Ramasubramonian details that its method may be embodied by a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by a processor (see ¶¶10, 32, 225, 230-234, 247, 259-260). Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 14 also applies to claim 22.
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 claim 3 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 3. 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).
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