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 .
This office action is in response to amendment filed 01/28/2026 in which the claims 1-2, 4-6 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-16, filed 01/28/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims have been fully considered and amended claims are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection made in view of Jeong et al. (US 2018/0176596 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-7 was previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Amendment claim 1-2, 4-6 has deleted the subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Hence claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph for claims are now cancelled.
Claim 6 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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 6 now amended overcomes the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim 7 is now cancelled, hence claim 7 previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2017/0208336 A1) is now withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,556,825 B2 in view of Zhang et al. (US 2017/0150186 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting patent claim
The difference between the instant and patent claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other, wherein the four coding blocks obtained by the second quad-division have the same size each other, and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream.” in the instant claim. However Zhang discloses wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other (Fig. 8, para[0271] teaches when one CU is split into two PUs in the horizontal direction); wherein the four coding blocks obtained by the second quad-division have the same size each other (Figs. 9 and 18, [0125], a CU that is smaller than 64x64 can be split into four vertical or horizontal rectangular PUs with sizes N/2x2N or 2NxN/2); and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream (Para[0353] teaches video decoder 30 may reconstruct residual blocks of the CU). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting patent claim, since flexibility of a node to have child nodes may increase video coding compression performance, as taught by Zhang (Para[0073]).
Claims 1, 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-2, 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 506, 969 B2 in view of Li et al. (US 2017/0208336 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting patent claim
The difference between the instant and conflicting patent claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block vertically into two coding blocks having a same size with each other, and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream” in the instant claim. However Li discloses wherein the wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other (Fig. 8, para[0270] teaches when one CU is split into two PUs in the horizontal direction), and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream. (Para[0153] teaches video decoder 30 may reconstruct residual blocks of the CU). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting patent claim, since performing partitioning of video blocks for more efficient coding by partitioning better captures objects in video data that are in the center of blocks. The method enables partitioning video data flexibly by using multi-type-tree partitioning, thus allowing for greater coding efficiency, as taught by Li (Para[0006]).
Claims 1, 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-2, 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 506, 969 B2 in view of Li et al. (US 2017/0208336 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting patent claim
The difference between the instant and conflicting patent claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other, and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream” in the instant claim. However Li discloses wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other (Para[0116] Horizontal binary-tree partitioning: a block is horizontally split into two same-size rectangular blocks. FIG. 6C is an example of horizontal binary-tree partitioning), and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream. (Para[0153] teaches video decoder 30 may reconstruct residual blocks of the CU). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting patent claim, since performing partitioning of video blocks for more efficient coding by partitioning better captures objects in video data that are in the center of blocks. The method enables partitioning video data flexibly by using multi-type-tree partitioning, thus allowing for greater coding efficiency, as taught by Li (Para[0006]).
11. Claims 1, 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3, 7 of co-pending application 18/802,687 in view of Li et al. (US 2017/0208336 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim
The difference between the instant and co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “and wherein the binary-division includes the horizontal binary-division and the vertical binary-division; wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block vertically into two coding blocks having a same size with each other, and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream” in the instant claim. However Li discloses and wherein the binary-division includes the horizontal binary-division and the vertical binary-division (Para[0112]-[0113] teaches horizontal binary-tree partitioning (BT partition structure), vertical binary-tree partitioning (BT partition structure); wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other (Para[0116] Horizontal binary-tree partitioning: a block is horizontally split into two same-size rectangular blocks. FIG. 6C is an example of horizontal binary-tree partitioning),), and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream. (Para[0153] teaches video decoder 30 may reconstruct residual blocks of the CU). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since performing partitioning of video blocks for more efficient coding by partitioning better captures objects in video data that are in the center of blocks. The method enables partitioning video data flexibly by using multi-type-tree partitioning, thus allowing for greater coding efficiency, as taught by Li (Para[0006]).
12. Claims 1, 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 2, 4 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,389123 B2 in view of Zhang et al. (US 2017/0150186 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting patent claim
The difference between the instant and conflicting patent claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other, wherein the four coding blocks obtained by the second quad-division have the same size each other, and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream” in the instant claim. However Zhang discloses wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other (Fig. 8, para[0271] teaches when one CU is split into two PUs in the horizontal direction); wherein the four coding blocks obtained by the second quad-division have the same size each other (Figs. 9 and 18, [0125], a CU that is smaller than 64x64 can be split into four vertical or horizontal rectangular PUs with sizes N/2x2N or 2NxN/2); and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream (Para[0353] teaches video decoder 30 may reconstruct residual blocks of the CU). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting patent claim, since flexibility of a node to have child nodes may increase video coding compression performance, as taught by Zhang (Para[0073]).
13. Claims 1, 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3, 7 of co-pending application 18/802,769 in view of Zhang et al. (US 2017/0150186 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim
The difference between the instant and co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “ wherein the binary-division includes the horizontal binary-division and the vertical binary-division; wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other, wherein the four coding blocks obtained by the second quad-division have the same size each other, and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream” in the instant claim. However Zhang discloses wherein the binary-division includes the horizontal binary-division and the vertical binary-division (Para[0112]-[0113] teaches horizontal binary-tree partitioning (BT partition structure), vertical binary-tree partitioning (BT partition structure); wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other (Fig. 8, para[0270] teaches when one CU is split into two PUs in the horizontal direction); wherein the four coding blocks obtained by the second quad-division have the same size each other (Figs. 9 and 18, [0125], a CU that is smaller than 64x64 can be split into four vertical or horizontal rectangular PUs with sizes N/2x2N or 2NxN/2); and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream. (Para[0353] teaches video decoder 30 may reconstruct residual blocks of the CU)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since flexibility of a node to have child nodes may increase video coding compression performance, as taught by Zhang (Para[0073]).
14. Claims 1, 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3, 7 of co-pending application 18/802,715 in view of Li et al. (US 2017/0208336 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim
The difference between the instant and co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the binary-division includes the horizontal binary-division and the vertical binary-division, wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block vertically into two coding blocks having a same size with each other, and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream” in the instant claim. However Li discloses wherein the binary-division includes the horizontal binary-division and the vertical binary-division (Para[0112]-[0113] teaches horizontal binary-tree partitioning (BT partition structure), vertical binary-tree partitioning (BT partition structure), wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other (Para[0116] Horizontal binary-tree partitioning: a block is horizontally split into two same-size rectangular blocks. FIG. 6C is an example of horizontal binary-tree partitioning)), and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream (Para[0153] teaches video decoder 30 may reconstruct residual blocks of the CU). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since performing partitioning of video blocks for more efficient coding by partitioning better captures objects in video data that are in the center of blocks. The method enables partitioning video data flexibly by using multi-type-tree partitioning, thus allowing for greater coding efficiency, as taught by Li (Para[0006]).
15. Claims 1, 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 7 of co-pending application 18/802,661 in view of Zhang et al. (US 2017/0150186 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim
The difference between the instant and co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the binary-division includes the horizontal binary-division and the vertical binary-division, wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other, wherein the four coding blocks obtained by the second quad-division have the same size each other; and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream.” in the instant claim. However Zhang discloses wherein the binary-division includes the horizontal binary-division and the vertical binary-division (Para[0112]-[0113] teaches horizontal binary-tree partitioning (BT partition structure), vertical binary-tree partitioning (BT partition structure)), wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other (Fig. 8, para[0270] teaches when one CU is split into two PUs in the horizontal direction), four coding blocks obtained by the second quad-division have the same size each other (Figs. 9 and 18, [0125], a CU that is smaller than 64x64 can be split into four vertical or horizontal rectangular PUs with sizes N/2x2N or 2NxN/2); and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream. (Para[0353] teaches video decoder 30 may reconstruct residual blocks of the CU). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since flexibility of a node to have child nodes may increase video coding compression performance, as taught by Zhang (Para[0073]).
16. Claims 1, 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3, 7 of co-pending application 18/802,753 in view of Zhang et al. (US 2017/0150186 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim
The difference between the instant and co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “ wherein the binary-division includes the horizontal binary-division and the vertical binary-division, wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other , wherein the four coding blocks obtained by the second quad-division have the same size each other; and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream.” in the instant claim. However Zhang discloses wherein the binary-division includes the horizontal binary-division and the vertical binary-division (Para[0112]-[0113] teaches horizontal binary-tree partitioning (BT partition structure), vertical binary-tree partitioning (BT partition structure), wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other (Fig. 8, para[0271] teaches when one CU is split into two PUs in the horizontal direction), four coding blocks obtained by the second quad-division have the same size each other (Figs. 9 and 18, [0125], a CU that is smaller than 64x64 can be split into four vertical or horizontal rectangular PUs with sizes N/2x2N or 2NxN/2); and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream. (Para[0353] teaches video decoder 30 may reconstruct residual blocks of the CU). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since flexibility of a node to have child nodes may increase video coding compression performance, as taught by Zhang (Para[0073]).
17. Claims 1-2, 4-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3, 5, 7 of co-pending application 18/756,928 in view of Zhang et al. (US 2017/0150186 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim
The difference between the instant and co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other, wherein the four coding blocks obtained by the second quad-division have the same size each other; and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream” in the instant claim. However Zhang discloses wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other (Fig. 8, para[0271] teaches when one CU is split into two PUs in the horizontal direction), four coding blocks obtained by the second quad-division have the same size each other (Figs. 9 and 18, [0125], a CU that is smaller than 64x64 can be split into four vertical or horizontal rectangular PUs with sizes N/2x2N or 2NxN/2); and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream (Para[0353] teaches video decoder 30 may reconstruct residual blocks of the CU). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since flexibility of a node to have child nodes may increase video coding compression performance, as taught by Zhang (Para[0073]).
18. Claims 1-2, 4-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5, 7 of co-pending application 18/803,046 in view of Li et al. (US 2017/0208336 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim
The difference between the instant and co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other” in the instant claim. However Li discloses wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other (Para[0116] Horizontal binary-tree partitioning: a block is horizontally split into two same-size rectangular blocks. FIG. 6C is an example of horizontal binary-tree partitioning). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since performing partitioning of video blocks for more efficient coding by partitioning better captures objects in video data that are in the center of blocks. The method enables partitioning video data flexibly by using multi-type-tree partitioning, thus allowing for greater coding efficiency, as taught by Li (Para[0006]).
19. Claims 1-2, 4-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5, 7 of co-pending application 18/803,002 in view of Li et al. (US 2017/0208336 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim
The difference between the instant and co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other, and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream” in the instant claim. However Li discloses wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other (Para[0116] Horizontal binary-tree partitioning: a block is horizontally split into two same-size rectangular blocks. FIG. 6C is an example of horizontal binary-tree partitioning), and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream. (Para[0153] teaches video decoder 30 may reconstruct residual blocks of the CU)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since performing partitioning of video blocks for more efficient coding by partitioning better captures objects in video data that are in the center of blocks. The method enables partitioning video data flexibly by using multi-type-tree partitioning, thus allowing for greater coding efficiency, as taught by Li (Para[0006]).
20. Claims 1-3, 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5, 7 of co-pending application 18/803,973 in view of Li et al. (US 2017/0208336 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim
The difference between the instant and co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream.” in the instant claim. However Li discloses wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other (Para[0116] Horizontal binary-tree partitioning: a block is horizontally split into two same-size rectangular blocks. FIG. 6C is an example of horizontal binary-tree partitioning)), and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream (Para[0153] teaches video decoder 30 may reconstruct residual blocks of the CU). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since performing partitioning of video blocks for more efficient coding by partitioning better captures objects in video data that are in the center of blocks. The method enables partitioning video data flexibly by using multi-type-tree partitioning, thus allowing for greater coding efficiency, as taught by Li (Para[0006]).
21. Claims 1-3, 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, 6 of co-pending application 18/810,411 in view of Zhang et al. (US 2017/0150186 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim
The difference between the instant and co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “ wherein the binary-division includes the horizontal binary-division and the vertical binary-division, wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other, wherein the four coding blocks obtained by the second quad-division have the same size each other; and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream” in the instant claim. However Zhang discloses wherein the binary-division includes the horizontal binary-division and the vertical binary-division, wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other (Figs. 8 , para[0271] teaches when one CU is split into two PUs in the horizontal direction)17-18), four coding blocks obtained by the second quad-division have the same size each other (Figs. 9 and 18, [0125], a CU that is smaller than 64x64 can be split into four vertical or horizontal rectangular PUs with sizes N/2x2N or 2NxN/2); and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream (Para[0353] teaches video decoder 30 may reconstruct residual blocks of the CU). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since flexibility of a node to have child nodes may increase video coding compression performance, as taught by Zhang (Para[0073]).
22. Claims 1-2, 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, 6 of co-pending application 18/810,353 in view of Zhang et al. (US 2017/0150186 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim
The difference between the instant and co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “ wherein the binary-division includes the horizontal binary-division and the vertical binary-division, wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other, wherein the four coding blocks obtained by the second quad-division have the same size each other; and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream” in the instant claim. However Zhang discloses wherein the binary-division includes the horizontal binary-division and the vertical binary-division, wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other (Figs. 8, 17-18 para[0271] teaches when one CU is split into two PUs in the horizontal direction)), four coding blocks obtained by the second quad-division have the same size each other (Figs. 9 and 18, [0125], a CU that is smaller than 64x64 can be split into four vertical or horizontal rectangular PUs with sizes N/2x2N or 2NxN/2); and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream (Para[0353] teaches video decoder 30 may reconstruct residual blocks of the CU). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since flexibility of a node to have child nodes may increase video coding compression performance, as taught by Zhang (Para[0073]).
23. Claims 1-2, 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-2, 4, 6 of co-pending application 18/810,348 in view of Zhang et al. (US 2017/0150186 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim
The difference between the instant and co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “ wherein the binary-division includes the horizontal binary-division and the vertical binary-division, wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other, wherein the four coding blocks obtained by the second quad-division have the same size each other; a and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream” in the instant claim. However Zhang discloses wherein the binary-division includes the horizontal binary-division and the vertical binary-division, wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other (Figs. 8, 17-18, Fig. 8, para[0271] teaches when one CU is split into two PUs in the horizontal direction), four coding blocks obtained by the second quad-division have the same size each other (Figs. 9 and 18, [0125], a CU that is smaller than 64x64 can be split into four vertical or horizontal rectangular PUs with sizes N/2x2N or 2NxN/2); a and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream (Para[0353] teaches video decoder 30 may reconstruct residual blocks of the CU)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since flexibility of a node to have child nodes may increase video coding compression performance, as taught by Zhang (Para[0073]).
24. Claims 1-2, 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-2, 4, 6 of co-pending application 18/810,340 in view of Zhang et al. (US 2017/0150186 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim
The difference between the instant and co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “ wherein the binary-division includes the horizontal binary-division and the vertical binary-division, wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other, wherein the four coding blocks obtained by the second quad-division have the same size each other; and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream” in the instant claim. However Zhang discloses wherein the binary-division includes the horizontal binary-division and the vertical binary-division, wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other (Figs. 8, 17-18, para[0271] teaches when one CU is split into two PUs in the horizontal direction)), four coding blocks obtained by the second quad-division have the same size each other (Figs. 9 and 18, [0125], a CU that is smaller than 64x64 can be split into four vertical or horizontal rectangular PUs with sizes N/2x2N or 2NxN/2); and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream (Para[0353] teaches video decoder 30 may reconstruct residual blocks of the CU). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since flexibility of a node to have child nodes may increase video coding compression performance, as taught by Zhang (Para[0073]).
25. Claims 1-2, 4-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, 6 of co-pending application 18/810,280 in view of Zhang et al. (US 2017/0150186 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim
The difference between the instant and co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “ wherein the binary-division includes the horizontal binary-division and the vertical binary-division, wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other, wherein the four coding blocks obtained by the second quad-division have the same size each other; and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream” in the instant claim. However Zhang discloses wherein the binary-division includes the horizontal binary-division and the vertical binary-division, wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other (Figs. 8, 17-18, Fig. 8, para[0271] teaches when one CU is split into two PUs in the horizontal direction), four coding blocks obtained by the second quad-division have the same size each other (Figs. 9 and 18, [0125], a CU that is smaller than 64x64 can be split into four vertical or horizontal rectangular PUs with sizes N/2x2N or 2NxN/2); and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream (Para[0353] teaches video decoder 30 may reconstruct residual blocks of the CU). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since flexibility of a node to have child nodes may increase video coding compression performance, as taught by Zhang (Para[0073]).
26. Claims 1-2, 4-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-6 of co-pending application 18/803,071 In view of Li et al. (US 2017/0208336 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim
The difference between the instant and co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other, and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream” in the instant claim. However Li discloses wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other (Fig. 5A, 5B , Fig. 6B. 6C), and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream (Para[0153] teaches video decoder 30 may reconstruct residual blocks of the CU). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since performing partitioning of video blocks for more efficient coding by partitioning better captures objects in video data that are in the center of blocks. The method enables partitioning video data flexibly by using multi-type-tree partitioning, thus allowing for greater coding efficiency, as taught by Li (Para[0006]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
27. 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.
28. Claims 1-2, 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2017/0208336 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2017/0150186 A1) and Jeong et al. (US 2018/0176596 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a method of decoding an image with a decoding (Para[0008] teaches the method of decoding) apparatus, comprising: receiving a bitstream in which the image is encoded (Para[0008] teaches an encoded image is received); obtaining, from the bitstream, at least one among a single index for specifying a block division type of a current block in the image (Para[0152] teaches, syntax indicating how a block is split, para[0169] teaches an index of a splitting pattern according to which a video block corresponding to a non-leaf node of the tree structure is split into video blocks corresponding to child nodes of the non-leaf node), a first flag specifying whether to perform horizontal binary-division and a second flag specifying whether to perform vertical binary-division (Para[0073] teaches a syntax element (e.g., a flag) is signaled to indicate the type of splitting performed (e.g., horizontal or vertical), where 0 indicates horizontal splitting and 1 indicates vertical splitting); determining, based on at least one among the single index, the first flag and the second flag, the block division type of the current block from a candidate group pre-defined in the decoding apparatus, wherein the single index is used to select one candidate division types among a plurality of candidate division types included in the candidate group (Para[0105] teaches an index is used to signal a split type), wherein, when a size of the current block is within a predetermined range (Para[0049], a block must be equal to or greater thana minimum size for processing, the processing including block division; Para[0172], a block must be equal to or greater than a minimum size for quad division), the plurality of candidate division types includes a first quad-division (Part N x N), and a binary-division (Part 2N x N), wherein, when the size of the current block is out of the predetermined range, the plurality of candidate division types does not include the second quad-division (para[0172], quad division is only applied for block sizes between 16x16 and 128x128), wherein the first quad-division is representative of dividing, based on one horizontal line and one vertical line, one coding block into four coding blocks (FIG. 6a), and the binary-division is representative of dividing one coding block into two coding blocks (Figs. 6b and 6c), and wherein the binary-division includes the horizontal binary-division and the vertical binary-division (Para[0112]-[0113] teaches horizontal binary-tree partitioning (BT partition structure), vertical binary-tree partitioning (BT partition structure)), wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other (Para[0116] Horizontal binary-tree partitioning: a block is horizontally split into two same-size rectangular blocks. FIG. 6C is an example of horizontal binary-tree partitioning), dividing, based on the determined block division type, the current block into a plurality of sub-blocks (Figs. 6a - 6e); and decoding each of the sub-blocks with reference to syntax information obtained from the bitstream (Para[0007], syntax elements are used for decoding), and wherein the decoding each of the sub-blocks comprises generating a residual block by decoding information obtained from the bitstream. (Para[0153] teaches video decoder 30 may reconstruct residual blocks of the CU).
Li does not explicitly disclose the first flag being different from the second flag; second quad-division; the second quad-division is representative of dividing, based on three horizontal lines or three vertical lines, one coding block into four coding blocks; wherein the four coding blocks obtained by the second quad-division have the same size each other. However Zhang discloses second quad-division; the second quad-division is representative of dividing, based on three horizontal lines or three vertical lines, one coding block into four coding block (Figs. 9 and 18, [0125], a CU that is smaller than 64x64 can be split into four vertical or horizontal rectangular PUs with sizes N/2x2N or 2NxN/2); wherein the four coding blocks obtained by the second quad-division have the same size each other(Figs. 9 and 18, [0125], a CU that is smaller than 64x64 can be split into four vertical or horizontal rectangular PUs with sizes N/2x2N or 2NxN/2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of partitioning the coded picture of the video data into the plurality of blocks using the three or more different partition structures, wherein at least three of the three or more different partition structures may be used at each depth of a tree structure that represents how a particular block of the coded picture of the video data is partitioned of Li with the method of quad-tree splitting pattern may result in sub-optimal video data compression performance of Zhang in order to provide a system having the flexibility of a node to have child nodes may increase video coding compression performance.
Li in view of Zhang does not explicitly disclose the first flag being different from the second flag. However Jeong discloses the first flag being different from the second flag (para[0157] –[0163] teaches respective flags (div_h_flag and div_h_flag) may be supported for horizontal division and vertical division. Binary division may be supported according to the above flag. Whether to perform horizontal or vertical division for each block may be represented by a horizontal division flag (div_h_flag) or a vertical division flag (div_v_flag), when the horizontal division flag (div_h_flag) or the vertical division flag (div_v_flag) is 1, horizontal or vertical division is performed, otherwise, horizontal or vertical division is not performed. When each flag is 1, horizontal or vertical division is performed and additional horizontal or vertical division is available, and when each flag is 0, horizontal or vertical division is not performed, and no more additional horizontal or vertical division is available. A block may be divided in a form of M×N, M/2×N, and M×N/2. Herein, the above flag may be encoded in an order of horizontal or vertical division flag as 00, 01, and 10. Alternatively, the above flag may be encoded in an order of the division flag (div_flag) and the horizontal-vertical flag (h_v_flag) (flag representing whether division is in a horizontal direction or a vertical direction) as 00, 10, and 11. Herein, the flag being overlapped may mean that horizontal division and vertical division are performed at the same time). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of partitioning the coded picture of the video data into the plurality of blocks using the three or more different partition structures, wherein at least three of the three or more different partition structures may be used at each depth of a tree structure that represents how a particular block of the coded picture of the video data is partitioned and quad-tree splitting pattern may result in sub-optimal video data compression performance of Li in view of Zhang with method in which the respective flags may be supported for horizontal division and vertical division. Binary division may be supported according to the above flag of Jeong in order to provide a system in which division flags may be configured in a bitstream based on a division depth order (from dep0 to dep_k), or the division flags may be configured in a bitstream based on whether or not to perform division.
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the current block is set equal to a largest coding block or is set a block resulting from dividing the largest coding block, wherein a size of the largest coding block is variably determined based on information on the largest coding block, wherein the information on the largest coding block is signaled from the bitstream ( Para[0072] teaches QTBT partitioning structure, the CTU size is set as 128×128 (e.g., a 128×128 luma block and two corresponding 64×64 chroma blocks), Para[0049] teaches Syntax data associated with a coded bitstream may define a maximum number of times a tree block may be split, referred to as a maximum CU depth, and may also define a minimum size of the coding nodes.).
Regarding claim 4, Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a number of the candidate division types available for the current block is different dependent on at least one of a size of the current block or a shape of the current block (Para[0071] teaches CTB is first partitioned using quad-tree portioning techniques, where the quad-tree splitting of one node can be iterated until the node reaches the minimum allowed quad-tree leaf node size. The minimum allowed quad-tree leaf node size may be indicated to video decoder by the value of the syntax element MinQTSize. If the quad-tree leaf node size is not larger than the maximum allowed binary-tree root node size (e.g., as denoted by a syntax element MaxBTSize), the quad-tree leaf node can be further partitioned using binary-tree partitioning. The binary-tree partitioning of one node can be iterated until the node reaches the minimum allowed binary-tree leaf node size. Para[0113] –[0118] teaches Quad-tree partitioning: a block is further split into four same-size rectangular blocks. FIG. 6A shows an example of quad-tree partitioning. Vertical binary-tree partitioning: a block is vertically split into two same-size rectangular blocks. FIG. 6B is an example of vertical binary-tree partitioning. Horizontal binary-tree partitioning: a block is horizontally split into two same-size rectangular blocks. FIG. 6C is an example of horizontal binary-tree partitioning).
Regarding claim 5, Li discloses a method of encoding an image with an encoding apparatus, comprising: determining a block division type of a current block in the image from a candidate group pre-defined in the encoding apparatus (Para[0098] teaches video encoder 22 may be configured to select from among all the of the aforementioned partition types for each of the QT, BT, and TT partition structures. In other examples, video encoder 22 may be configured to only determine a partition type from among a subset of the aforementioned partition types. For example, a subset of the above-discussed partition types (or other partition types) may be used for certain block sizes or for certain depths of a quadtree structure); and encoding each of sub-blocks resulting from dividing the current block based on the determined block division type (para[0055], [0056], the partitioned block is encoded), wherein a single index is used to select one candidate division types among a plurality of candidate division types included in the candidate group (Para[0152] teaches, syntax indicating how a block is split, para[0169] teaches an index of a splitting pattern according to which a video block corresponding to a non-leaf node of the tree structure is split into video blocks corresponding to child nodes of the non-leaf node, Figs. 6A-E Para[0105] teaches an index is used to signal a split type), wherein, when a size of the current block is within a predetermined range (para[0049] teaches a block must be equal to or greater than a minimum size for processing, the processing including block division; [0172], a block must be equal to or greater than a minimum size for quad division), the plurality of candidate division types includes a first quad-division (Part N x N), and a binary-division (Part 2N x N), wherein, when the size of the current block is out of the predetermined range, the plurality of candidate division types does not include the second quad-division (para[0172], quad division is only applied for block sizes between 16x16 and 128x128), wherein the first quad-division is representative of dividing, based on one horizontal line and one vertical line, one coding block into four coding blocks (FIG. 6a), the binary-division is representative of dividing one coding block into two coding blocks (Figs. 6b and 6c), and wherein the binary-division includes a horizontal binary-division and a vertical binary-division (Para[0112]-[0113] teaches horizontal binary-tree partitioning (BT partition structure), vertical binary-tree partitioning (BT partition structure)), wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other(Para[0116] Horizontal binary-tree partitioning: a block is horizontally split into two same-size rectangular blocks. FIG. 6C is an example of horizontal binary-tree partitioning),), and wherein the encoding each of the sub-blocks comprises encoding a residual block into the bitstream, (Para[0145] teaches video encoder 22 may reconstruct the coding blocks of the CU , residual block), encoding at least one among the single index for specifying the determined block division type of the current block, a first flag specifying whether to perform the horizontal binary-division and a second flag specifying whether to perform the vertical binary-division (para[0105], an index is used to signal a split type, Para[0073] teaches a syntax element (e.g., a flag) is signaled to indicate the type of splitting performed (e.g., horizontal or vertical), where 0 indicates horizontal splitting and 1 indicates vertical splitting)).
Li does not explicitly disclose second quad-division; the second quad-division is representative of dividing, based on three horizontal lines or three vertical lines, one coding block into four coding blocks; wherein the four coding blocks obtained by the second quad-division have the same size each other, the first flag being different from the second flag. However Zhang discloses second quad-division; the second quad-division is representative of dividing, based on three horizontal lines or three vertical lines, one coding block into four coding blocks (Figs. 9 and 18,Para [0125] teaches a CU that is smaller than 64x64 can be split into four vertical or horizontal rectangular PUs with sizes N/2x2N or 2NxN/2); wherein the four coding blocks obtained by the second quad-division have the same size each other(Figs. 9 and 18, [0125], a CU that is smaller than 64x64 can be split into four vertical or horizontal rectangular PUs with sizes N/2x2N or 2NxN/2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of partitioning the coded picture of the video data into the plurality of blocks using the three or more different partition structures, wherein at least three of the three or more different partition structures may be used at each depth of a tree structure that represents how a particular block of the coded picture of the video data is partitioned of Li with the method of quad-tree splitting pattern may result in sub-optimal video data compression performance of Zhang in order to provide a system having the flexibility of a node to have child nodes may increase video coding compression performance.
Li in view of Zhang does not explicitly disclose the first flag being different from the second flag. However Jeong discloses the first flag being different from the second flag (para[0157] –[0163] teaches respective flags (div_h_flag and div_h_flag) may be supported for horizontal division and vertical division. Binary division may be supported according to the above flag. Whether to perform horizontal or vertical division for each block may be represented by a horizontal division flag (div_h_flag) or a vertical division flag (div_v_flag), when the horizontal division flag (div_h_flag) or the vertical division flag (div_v_flag) is 1, horizontal or vertical division is performed, otherwise, horizontal or vertical division is not performed. When each flag is 1, horizontal or vertical division is performed and additional horizontal or vertical division is available, and when each flag is 0, horizontal or vertical division is not performed, and no more additional horizontal or vertical division is available. A block may be divided in a form of M×N, M/2×N, and M×N/2. Herein, the above flag may be encoded in an order of horizontal or vertical division flag as 00, 01, and 10. Alternatively, the above flag may be encoded in an order of the division flag (div_flag) and the horizontal-vertical flag (h_v_flag) (flag representing whether division is in a horizontal direction or a vertical direction) as 00, 10, and 11. Herein, the flag being overlapped may mean that horizontal division and vertical division are performed at the same time). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of partitioning the coded picture of the video data into the plurality of blocks using the three or more different partition structures, wherein at least three of the three or more different partition structures may be used at each depth of a tree structure that represents how a particular block of the coded picture of the video data is partitioned and quad-tree splitting pattern may result in sub-optimal video data compression performance of Li in view of Zhang with method in which the respective flags may be supported for horizontal division and vertical division. Binary division may be supported according to the above flag of Jeong in order to provide a system in which division flags may be configured in a bitstream based on a division depth order (from dep0 to dep_k), or the division flags may be configured in a bitstream based on whether or not to perform division.
Regarding claim 6, Li discloses a method of transmitting a bitstream (Para[0035], the bitstream is transmitted, the image encoding method comprising: determining a block division type of a current block in the image from a candidate group pre-defined in the encoding apparatus (Para[0098] teaches video encoder 22 may be configured to select from among all the of the aforementioned partition types for each of the QT, BT, and TT partition structures. In other examples, video encoder 22 may be configured to only determine a partition type from among a subset of the aforementioned partition types. For example, a subset of the above-discussed partition types (or other partition types) may be used for certain block sizes or for certain depths of a quadtree structure); encoding each of sub-blocks resulting from dividing the current block based on the determined block division type to generate the bitstream; and transmitting the bitstream, wherein a single index is used to select one candidate division types among a plurality of candidate division types included in the candidate group (Para[0152] teaches, syntax indicating how a block is split, para[0169] teaches an index of a splitting pattern according to which a video block corresponding to a non-leaf node of the tree structure is split into video blocks corresponding to child nodes of the non-leaf node, Figs. 6A-E Para[0105] teaches an index is used to signal a split type), wherein, when a size of the current block is within a predetermined range (para[0049] teaches a block must be equal to or greater than a minimum size for processing, the processing including block division; [0172], a block must be equal to or greater than a minimum size for quad division), the plurality of candidate division types includes, a first quad-division (Part N x N), a binary-division (Part 2N x N), wherein, when the size of the current block is out of the predetermined range, the plurality of candidate division types does not include the second quad-division (para[0172], quad division is only applied for block sizes between 16x16 and 128x128), wherein the first quad-division is representative of dividing, based on one horizontal line and one vertical line, one coding block into four coding blocks (FIG. 6a), the binary-division is representative of dividing one coding block into two coding blocks (Figs. 6b and 6c), wherein the binary-division includes a horizontal binary-division and a vertical binary-division (Para[0112]-[0113] teaches horizontal binary-tree partitioning (BT partition structure), vertical binary-tree partitioning (BT partition structure)), wherein the horizontal binary-division divides one coding block horizontally into two coding blocks having a same size with each other (Para[0116] Horizontal binary-tree partitioning: a block is horizontally split into two same-size rectangular blocks. FIG. 6C is an example of horizontal binary-tree partitioning), and wherein the encoding each of the sub-blocks comprises encoding a residual block into the bitstream, encoding at least one among the single index for specifying the determined block division type of the current block (Para[0145] teaches video encoder 22 may reconstruct the coding blocks of the CU , residual block), a first flag specifying whether to perform the horizontal binary-division and a second flag specifying whether to perform the vertical binary-division para[0105], an index is used to signal a split type, Para[0073] teaches a syntax element (e.g., a flag) is signaled to indicate the type of splitting performed (e.g., horizontal or vertical), where 0 indicates horizontal splitting and 1 indicates vertical splitting)).
Li does not explicitly disclose a second quad-division; the second quad-division is representative of dividing, based on three horizontal lines or three vertical lines, one coding block into four coding blocks; wherein the four coding blocks obtained by the second quad-division have the same size each other, the first flag being different from the second flag. However Zhang discloses second quad-division; the second quad-division is representative of dividing, based on three horizontal lines or three vertical lines, one coding block into four coding blocks (Figs 9 and 18, [0125], a CU that is smaller than 64x64 can be split into four vertical or horizontal rectangular PUs with sizes N/2x2N or 2NxN/2); wherein the four coding blocks obtained by the second quad-division have the same size each other(Figs. 9 and 18, [0125], a CU that is smaller than 64x64 can be split into four vertical or horizontal rectangular PUs with sizes N/2x2N or 2NxN/2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of partitioning the coded picture of the video data into the plurality of blocks using the three or more different partition structures, wherein at least three of the three or more different partition structures may be used at each depth of a tree structure that represents how a particular block of the coded picture of the video data is partitioned of Li with the method of quad-tree splitting pattern may result in sub-optimal video data compression performance of Zhang in order to provide a system having the flexibility of a node to have child nodes may increase video coding compression performance.
Li in view of Zhang does not explicitly disclose the first flag being different from the second flag. However Jeong discloses the first flag being different from the second flag (para[0157] –[0163] teaches respective flags (div_h_flag and div_h_flag) may be supported for horizontal division and vertical division. Binary division may be supported according to the above flag. Whether to perform horizontal or vertical division for each block may be represented by a horizontal division flag (div_h_flag) or a vertical division flag (div_v_flag), when the horizontal division flag (div_h_flag) or the vertical division flag (div_v_flag) is 1, horizontal or vertical division is performed, otherwise, horizontal or vertical division is not performed. When each flag is 1, horizontal or vertical division is performed and additional horizontal or vertical division is available, and when each flag is 0, horizontal or vertical division is not performed, and no more additional horizontal or vertical division is available. A block may be divided in a form of M×N, M/2×N, and M×N/2. Herein, the above flag may be encoded in an order of horizontal or vertical division flag as 00, 01, and 10. Alternatively, the above flag may be encoded in an order of the division flag (div_flag) and the horizontal-vertical flag (h_v_flag) (flag representing whether division is in a horizontal direction or a vertical direction) as 00, 10, and 11. Herein, the flag being overlapped may mean that horizontal division and vertical division are performed at the same time). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of partitioning the coded picture of the video data into the plurality of blocks using the three or more different partition structures, wherein at least three of the three or more different partition structures may be used at each depth of a tree structure that represents how a particular block of the coded picture of the video data is partitioned and quad-tree splitting pattern may result in sub-optimal video data compression performance of Li in view of Zhang with method in which the respective flags may be supported for horizontal division and vertical division. Binary division may be supported according to the above flag of Jeong in order to provide a system in which division flags may be configured in a bitstream based on a division depth order (from dep0 to dep_k), or the division flags may be configured in a bitstream based on whether or not to perform division.
Conclusion
29. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROWINA J CATTUNGAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5922. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-6pm.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571) 272-7527. 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.
/ROWINA J CATTUNGAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425