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 . 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 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. There are a total of 20 claims and claims 47-66 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed on 01/16/2026 with respect to claims 47, 53, 59 and 63 in the remarks, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the new limitations added to claims 47, 53, 59 and 63. See the rejection below of claims 47, 53, 59 and 63 for relevant citations found in ZHU disclosing the newly added limitations.
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.
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.
Claims 47, 53, 59, 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHI et al.(US 2019/0141328 A1) in view of ZHU et al. (US 2021/0029355 A1).
Regarding claim 47, NISHI disclose a video decoding device, the device comprising ([see in Fig. 25]-decoding method): a processor ([see in Fig. 1]-processor) configured to: obtain depth information associated with a video block([para 0112]-obtaining motion vector); determine, based on at least the depth information([para 0112]- : obtaining motion vectors of sub-blocks obtained by splitting a current frame; determining, based on the motion vectors), a partitioning type associated with the video block([para 0112]- obtaining motion vectors of sub-blocks obtained by splitting a current frame); and decode the video block in accordance with the determined partitioning type([para 0112 and 0358-0359]- obtaining motion vectors of sub-blocks obtained by splitting a current frame; determining, based on the motion vectors, for each of processing blocks obtained by splitting the current frame).
However, NISHI does not explicitly disclose wherein the depth information comprises a depth block that is collocated with the video block.
In an analogous art, ZHU discloses wherein the depth information comprises a depth block that is collocated with the video block([see in Fig. 10]- FIG. 10 is a conceptual diagram illustrating neighboring video blocks that may be used for determining a partitioning depth in accordance with one or more techniques of this disclosure. It should be noted that in the example of FIG. 10, the current video block is a CTU and neighboring video blocks are CTUs included in a previously coded picture. Thus, in the example illustrated in FIG. 10, neighboring video blocks that may be used for determining a partitioning depth include a collocated CTU to the current CTU (e.g., having the same position as the current CTU according to a defined scan pattern) and a spatially adjacent above CTU, a spatially adjacent left CTU, a spatially adjacent below CTU, and a spatially adjacent right CTU in a previously coded picture). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of ZHU to the modified system of NISHI techniques for partitioning a picture of video data may reduce data requirements by exploiting the inherent redundancies in a video sequence [ZHU; para 0004].
Regarding claim 53, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 47. Hence; all limitations for method claim 53 have been met in device claim 47.
Regarding claim 59, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 47. Hence; all limitations for method claim 59 have been met in device claim 47.
Regarding claim 63, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 47. Hence; all limitations for method claim 63 have been met in device claim 47.
Claims 48, 49, 54, 55, 60,61, 64 and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHI in view of ZHU as applied to claim 47 and further in view of Gu et al. ( US 2015/0382025 A1).
Regarding claim 48, the combination of NISHI and ZHU do not exclusively disclose segment the depth block based on binary segmentation; and determine the partitioning type of the video block based on the binary segmented depth block.
In an analogous art, Gu discloses segment the depth block based on binary segmentation; and determine the partitioning type of the video block based on the binary segmented depth block([abstract]- Depth based block partitioning in high efficiency video coding is provided by partitioning a video image block into different partitions using a binary segmentation mask). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Gu to the modified system of NISHI and ZHU a method and device for providing depth based block partitioning in High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) that greatly reduce and substantially eliminate the problems associated with conventional encoder and decoder processing implementations [Gu; para 0004].
Regarding claim 49, Gu discloses segment the depth block based on binary segmentation; obtain a gradient associated with the binary segmented depth block; and determine the partitioning type of the video block based on at least the gradient associated with the binary segmented depth block([abstract]- Depth based block partitioning in high efficiency video coding is provided by partitioning a video image block into different partitions using a binary segmentation mask. A determination is made whether to filter pixels at a boundary between the partitions. A particular pixel is not filtered in response to each adjacent pixel in vertical and horizontal planes in relation to the particular pixel having a same value).
Regarding claim 54, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 48.
Regarding claim 55, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 49.
Regarding claim 60, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 48.
Regarding claim 61, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 49.
Regarding claim 64, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 48.
Regarding claim 65, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 49.
Claims 50, 56, 62 and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHI and ZHU as applied to claim 47 above and further in view of Lu et al. (CN 105163129 B).
Regarding claim 50, the combination of NISHI and ZHU do not explicitly disclose detect an edge in the depth block based at least on a vertical gradient and a horizontal gradient of the depth block; and determine the partitioning type of the video block based on a position of the edge in the depth block.
In an analogous art, Lu discloses detect an edge in the depth block based at least on a vertical gradient and a horizontal gradient of the depth block; and determine the partitioning type of the video block based on a position of the edge in the depth block ([para 0019]- a block method based on a scaling factor to resample the depth video, so it can be applicable to different sampling rates; (2) The depth down sampling method in the 3D-HEVC video encoding method proposed in the present invention retains the edge values in the original depth map by using a median filtering method based on the gradient characteristics of the edge blocks and non-edge blocks of the depth map). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Lu to the modified system of NISHI and ZHU a gradient map guided 3D-HEVC encoding and decoding method based on depth resampling under the precondition of keeping the coding performance and protects the edge of the depth video, improves the quality of the depth video re-sampling reduces the algorithm complexity [Lu; para 0004].
Regarding claim 56, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 50.
Regarding claim 62, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 50.
Regarding claim 66, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 50.
Claims 51, 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHI and ZHU as applied to claim 47 above and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2015/0237324 A1).
Regarding claim 51, the combination of NISHI and ZHU does not explicitly disclose split the depth block into a plurality of parts; determine respective scores associated with the plurality of parts based at least in part on a comparison of a sum of pixel depth values in a first part to a sum of pixel depth values in a second part; and determine the partitioning type based on the respective scores.
In an analogous art, Zhang discloses split the depth block into a plurality of parts; determine respective scores associated with the plurality of parts based at least in part on a comparison of a sum of pixel depth values in a first part to a sum of pixel depth values in a second part; and determine the partitioning type based on the respective scores([para 0030]- block partitioning is substantially reduced by comparing pixels at pre-defined locations of the corresponding depth block for each partition candidate. According to this embodiment, the block partition process is simplified by comparing the relationships among the pixels at pre-defined locations of the corresponding depth block for each block partition candidate. According to this embodiment, m pixels at pre-defined locations of the derived depth block for each partitioned block of a block partition candidate are used to determine the desired block partition). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Zhang to the modified system of NISHI and ZHU texture coding utilizing depth-based block partitioning (DBBP) to improve coding efficiency [Zhang; para 0002 ].
Regarding claim 57, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 51.
Claims 52, 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHI in view of ZHU as applied to claim 47 above and further in view of Rusanovskyy et al. (US 2014/0301463 A1).
Regarding claim 52, the combination of NISHI and ZHU does not explicitly disclose determine whether the depth block is homogenous; and determine that the partitioning type for the video block is non-split based on a determination that the depth block is homogenous.
In an analogous art, Rusanovskyy discloses determine whether the depth block is homogenous; and determine that the partitioning type for the video block is non-split based on a determination that the depth block is homogenous([para 0437]-determining if a block of depth data cb_d represents homogenous). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Rusanovskyy to the modified system of NISHI and ZHU a method for encoding and decoding video information to improve coding efficiency of a high-level syntax only multiview video coder, by efficiently using motion information from a reference view as a motion predictor for coding the target view. [ Rusanovskyy; para 0063].
Regarding claim 58, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 53.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art are made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
1. Furht et al., US 2021/0360271A1, discloses Method a inter prediction in exponential partitioning.
2. PARK et. al., US 2018/0176599A1, discloses a multi-layer video encoding method and a multi-layer video decoding method.
3. Chen et al., US 2014/0139627 A1, discloses video coding and, more particularly, three-dimensional video coding (3DVC).
4. Chien et al., US. 2016/0366435 A1, discloses a Video coding techniques include spatial (intra-picture) prediction and/or temporal (inter-picture) prediction to reduce or remove redundancy.
5. JAEGER et al., US 2016/0345007 A1, discloses provide an efficient method for associating a video block partitioning pattern to a video coding block.
Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD NAZMUL HAQUE whose telephone number is (571)272-5328. The examiner can normally be reached IFW.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at 5712727327. 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.
/MD N HAQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights