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 2 and 3 have been cancelled. Claims 1 and 4-16 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 has been amended. Thus, the objection to claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Due to the cancellation of claims 2 and 3 and the amendments to claims 4-6 and 9, the 35 USC § 112 rejections of claims 2-9 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
On page 5 of the Applicant’s Remarks, the Applicant states that, “With this Amendment, claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 12, and 13 are amended and claims 2-4, 8, 11 are canceled without prejudice.” However, the Examiner would like to note that the amendment filed 03/12/2026 only cancels claims 2 and 3. Claims 1 and 4-16 are currently pending in this application.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 03/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under “VVC Search Space Analysis Including an Open, Optimized Implementation” by Wieckowski et al. (Hereafter, “Wieckowski”) in view of Guo et al. (Hereafter, “Guo”) [US 2024/0422314 A1] in further view of Budge et al. (Hereafter, “Budge”) [US 2011/0176000 A1] have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of “VVC Search Space Analysis Including an Open, Optimized Implementation” by Wieckowski et al. (Hereafter, “Wieckowski”) in view of Guo et al. (Hereafter, “Guo”) [US 2024/0422314 A1] in further view of Budge et al. (Hereafter, “Budge”) [US 2011/0176000 A1] in even further view of Wang [U.S. Patent No. 5,950,158].
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, 4-6, 8, 9, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “VVC Search Space Analysis Including an Open, Optimized Implementation” by Wieckowski et al. (Hereafter, “Wieckowski”) in view of Guo et al. (Hereafter, “Guo”) [US 2024/0422314 A1] in further view of Budge et al. (Hereafter, “Budge”) [US 2011/0176000 A1] in even further view of Wang [U.S. Patent No. 5,950,158].
In regards to claim 1, Wieckowski discloses a computer-implemented method for optimizing a video encoder ([Page 128] The main task for an encoder is to decide how to partition each CTU and which mode to use for each block.), comprising the steps of: a) defining a plurality of coding units (CUs) of the video encoder that correspond to a plurality of stages; the plurality of stages comprising a first stage, a second stage immediately after the first stage ([Page 132] Partitioning Search Space: Additionally to the measured values, an upper bound for SP, assuming an encoder using the G-BFOS top-down search of all possible blocks without early terminations, is derived. For VVC, it is derived by counting all possible blocks within a CTU search without any early termination strategies.), and a third stage immediately before the first stage ([Page 128] In this paradigm, a video is first split into blocks, usually in a two-stage approach. First, a rigid subdivision into fixed size blocks is performed, e.g., macroblocks in H.264/AVC [17] and coding tree units (CTU) in HEVC and VVC. [Page 129] multiple hierarchical encoding decisions [Pages 130-131] CTU level is first partitioning search space); b) providing a decision space of encoding parameters of the video encoder ([Page 134] Coding Mode Search Space: After an encoder decides to start a CU search within a specific block, increasing the measure SP, a set of coding modes for that specific block is tested to calculate or estimate their RD-cost to decide a specific optimal encoding for that given block.); and c) defining, for the second stage, a subspace being a subset of the decision space; the subspace comprising b1 optimal decision paths from the first stage to the second stage, wherein b1 is defined as a beam size for the first stage; and d) truncating dependencies ([Page 129] pruning search space by reducing the number of encoding decisions) b1 optimal decision paths are the b1 decision paths that have lowest accumulated cost among all decision paths from the first stage to the second stage ([Page 129] Instead of being a monolithic part, this search is the product of multiple hierarchical encoding decisions, establishing the overall encoder search space. Pruning this search space by reducing the number of encoding decisions provides the means to reduce the encoder complexity.).
Guo discloses a computer-implemented method for optimizing a video encoder ([0001] video encoding), comprising the steps of: a) defining a plurality of coding units (CUs) of the video encoder that correspond to a plurality of stages; the plurality of stages comprising a first stage, and a second stage immediately after the first stage, and a third stage immediately before the first stage ([Fig. 8] superblock 812, CU 814 and CUs 816A-816D); b) providing a decision space of encoding parameters of the video encoder; and c) defining, for the second stage, a subspace being a subset of the decision space; the subspace comprising b1 optimal decision paths from the first stage to the second stage, wherein b1 is defined as a beam size for the first stage; and b1 optimal decision paths are the b1 decision paths that have lowest accumulated cost among all decision paths from the first stage to the second stage ([Fig. 8] 816A and 816D are selected and 816B and 816C are discarded).
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 Wieckowski with the known discarding of partitions in different stages of determining the combinations of subblocks for the super block as taught by Guo in order to improve the determination of the partitioning of the superblock.
Wieckowski fails to explicitly disclose the specifics of the pruning of the search space. However, beam search is a well-known algorithm in the video coding and computer science field.
Budge discloses an approach used in such a situation is a beam search. A beam width, W, is selected. At each stage of the trellis, only the W best paths are stored. At the next stage, extensions are made from these paths, the path costs are sorted, and then the number of extensions is pruned to the W paths of smallest cost. [0095].
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 Wieckowski with the well known beam search algorithm as taught by Budge in order to reduce the number of paths that are needed to be explored in order to arrive at an optimal solution [See Budge, 00095].
Wang discloses truncating dependencies between the third stage and the first stage by reducing the number of decision paths from the third stage to the first stage to one ([Col. 17] In the case of the FIG. 8 example, pruning is performed so that a beam search (with a beam width of 1) is conducted for the desired reduced size model. Accordingly, all but the best, i.e., highest scoring model, is pruned.).
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 Wieckowski, Guo, and Budge with the teachings that during a beam search operation/algorithm, pruning can take place so that the beam width is 1 as taught by Wang in order to prune all but the best highest scoring model [See Wang].
In regards to claim 4, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Wieckowski discloses wherein a third CU corresponding to the third stage is at coding-tree-unit (CTU) level ([Page 128] In this paradigm, a video is first split into blocks, usually in a two-stage approach. First, a rigid subdivision into fixed size blocks is performed, e.g., macroblocks in H.264/AVC [17] and coding tree units (CTU) in HEVC and VVC.).
In regards to claim 5, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Wieckowski discloses wherein a third CU corresponding to the third stage is from a different partitioning depth compared to that of a first CU corresponding to the first stage ([Page 128] In this paradigm, a video is first split into blocks, usually in a two-stage approach. First, a rigid subdivision into fixed size blocks is performed, e.g., macroblocks in H.264/AVC [17] and coding tree units (CTU) in HEVC and VVC. Then, each of the blocks can be further subdivided as specified by the block partitioning scheme of each standard. In HEVC and VVC, a recursive subdivision based on different split modes is used. In HEVC, starting from a coding tree unit (usually containing 64×64 luma samples and the collocated chroma samples), a quad-split can be signaled indicating the block is to be split into four equally sized subblocks. This process is repeated recursively for each subblock until a predefined minimal block size is reached or it is signaled that no further split is performed. In VVC, the recursive split set is extended by four additional modes (Fig. 1), thus not only the split decision but also the split type has to be signaled. The leaves of the splitting process in VVC and HEVC are called coding units (CU).).
In regards to claim 6, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Wieckowski discloses wherein the plurality of stages further comprises a fourth stage immediately after the second stage; the method further comprising: e) defining, for the fourth stage, a subspace being a subset of the decision space; the subspace comprising b2 optimal decision paths from the first stage to the fourth stage, wherein b2 is defined as a beam size for the second stage; wherein the b2 optimal decision paths are the b2 decision paths that have lowest accumulated cost among all decision paths from the first stage to the fourth stage ([Page 132] Partitioning Search Space: Additionally to the measured values, an upper bound for SP, assuming an encoder using the G-BFOS top-down search of all possible blocks without early terminations, is derived. For VVC, it is derived by counting all possible blocks within a CTU search without any early termination strategies. [Page 134] Coding Mode Search Space: After an encoder decides to start a CU search within a specific block, increasing the measure SP, a set of coding modes for that specific block is tested to calculate or estimate their RD-cost to decide a specific optimal encoding for that given block. [Page 129] Instead of being a monolithic part, this search is the product of multiple hierarchical encoding decisions, establishing the overall encoder search space. Pruning this search space by reducing the number of encoding decisions provides the means to reduce the encoder complexity.).
Guo discloses wherein the plurality of stages further comprises a fourth stage immediately after the second stage ([Fig. 8] 818A-818H); the method further comprising: e) defining, for the fourth stage, a subspace being a subset of the decision space; the subspace comprising b2 optimal decision paths from the first stage to the fourth stage, wherein b2 is defined as a beam size for the second stage ([Fig. 8] 818H is selected and 818A-818G are discarded); wherein the b2 optimal decision paths are the b2 decision paths that have lowest accumulated cost among all decision paths from the first stage to the fourth stage ([Abstract] the combination of subblocks with the lower cost is selected).
Budge discloses wherein the plurality of stages further comprises a fourth stage immediately after the second stage; the method further comprising: e) defining, for the fourth stage, a subspace being a subset of the decision space; the subspace comprising b2 optimal decision paths from the first stage to the fourth stage, wherein b2 is defined as a beam size for the second stage; wherein the b2 optimal decision paths are the b2 decision paths that have lowest accumulated cost among all decision paths from the first stage to the fourth stage ([0095] An approach used in such a situation is a beam search. A beam width, W, is selected. At each stage of the trellis, only the W best paths are stored. At the next stage, extensions are made from these paths, the path costs are sorted, and then the number of extensions is pruned to the W paths of smallest cost.).
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 Wieckowski with the known discarding of partitions in different stages of determining the combinations of subblocks for the super block as taught by Guo in order to improve the determination of the partitioning of the superblock. 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 Wieckowski with the well known beam search algorithm as taught by Budge in order to reduce the number of paths that are needed to be explored in order to arrive at an optimal solution [See Budge, 00095].
In regards to claim 8, the limitations of claim 6 have been addressed. Wieckowski fails to explicitly disclose wherein b1 is the same as b2.
Budge discloses wherein b1 is the same as b2 ([0095] A beam width, W, is selected. At each stage of the trellis, only the W best paths are stored.).
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 Wieckowski with the well known beam search algorithm as taught by Budge in order to reduce the number of paths that are needed to be explored in order to arrive at an optimal solution [See Budge, 00095].
In regards to claim 9, the limitations of claim 6 have been addressed. Wieckowski discloses wherein the b2 optimal decision paths are collected by a generalized Breiman, Friedman, Olshen and Stone (G-BFOS) algorithm; the G-BFOS algorithm adapted to compare the b2 optimal decision paths with those from a fifth stage ([Page 128] In modern encoders, the split search usually employs the so called G-BFOS (generalized Breiman, Freidman, Olshen and Stone) algorithm [20], [21]. The algorithm finds the optimal partitioning in a top down manner by iteratively deciding an optimal partitioning for a specific block.).
In regards to claim 13, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Wieckowski discloses wherein the decision space comprises partitioning decision, prediction decisions or transform decisions ([Pages 130-131] Partitioning search space and coding mode search space).
In regards to claim 14, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Wieckowski discloses wherein the video encoder is versatile video coding (VVC) ([Abstract] VVC search space).
Claim 15 lists all the same elements of claim 1, but in non-transitory computer-readable memory recording medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 15.
Claim 16 lists all the same elements of claim 1, but in computing system form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 16.
Claim(s) 7 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieckowski in view of Guo in further view of Budge in further view of Wang in further view of Kuo et al. (Hereafter, “Kuo”) [US 2024/0053968 A1].
In regards to claim 7, the limitations of claim 6 have been addressed. Wieckowski fails to explicitly disclose wherein b1 is different from b2.
Guo discloses wherein b1 is different from b2 ([Fig. 8] the selection in the 816 blocks is 2 while the selection in the 818 blocks is 1).
Kuo discloses wherein b1 is different from b2 ([0017] different levels of the tree may have different beam widths).
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 Wieckowski with the known discarding of partitions in different stages of determining the combinations of subblocks for the super block as taught by Guo in order to improve the determination of the partitioning of the superblock. 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 Wieckowski with the different levels having different beam widths as taught by Kuo in order to correctly limit the search space [See Kuo].
In regards to claim 10, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Wieckowski discloses further comprises the step of determining a beam size for each of the plurality of stages ([Page 129] Part of this complexity can be attributed to an essential encoder component, the search for optimal encoding decisions. Instead of being a monolithic part, this search is the product of multiple hierarchical encoding decisions, establishing the overall encoder search space. Pruning this search space by reducing the number of encoding decisions provides the means to reduce the encoder complexity.).
Kuo discloses further comprises the step of determining a beam size for each of the plurality of stages ([0017] different levels of the tree may have different beam widths).
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 Wieckowski with the different levels having different beam widths as taught by Kuo in order to correctly limit the search space [See Kuo].
In regards to claim 11, the limitations of claim 10 have been addressed. Wieckowski discloses wherein the beam size for each of the stages is determined based on characteristics of a corresponding one of the plurality of CUs ([Pages 130-131 and Fig. 3] partitioning search space is determined by width and height of block).
In regards to claim 12, the limitations of claim 11 have been addressed. Wieckowski discloses wherein the characteristics of the corresponding CU comprise a width and a height of the corresponding CU ([Pages 130-131 and Fig. 3] partitioning search space is determined by width and height of block).
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
Prosecution Insights