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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 - 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al (US 2019/0394491, hereafter Han) in view of Lim et al (US 2019/0273922, hereafter Lim) in further view of Jhu et al (US 12,452,460, hereafter Jhu).
As per claim 1, a method of video decoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors, the method comprising:
receiving a video bitstream comprising a plurality of blocks and a first indicator associated with one or more partitioning types (¶ 52);
parsing, from the video bitstream, the first indicator; when the first indicator has a first value, partitioning a first block of the plurality of blocks according to a first partitioning mode, including partitioning the first block into N equal-sized subblocks (¶ 72).
However, Han does not explicitly teach wherein N = 2M and wherein M is a positive integer that is greater than 2; and decoding the first block in accordance with the partitioning.
In the same field of endeavor, Lim teaches wherein N = 2M and wherein M is a positive integer that is greater than 2; and decoding the first block in accordance with the partitioning (¶ 632).
However, Han or Lim does not teach when the first indicator has a first value, parsing one or more partitioning parameters for the plurality of blocks and partitioning the plurality of blocks according to the one or more partitioning parameters.
In the same field of endeavor, teaches when the first indicator has a first value,
parsing one or more partitioning parameters for the plurality of blocks and partitioning the plurality of blocks according to the one or more partitioning parameters (Table 11; column 83; partition_constraints_override_flag equal 1 specifies that partition constrain parameters are present in the PH. partition_constraints_override_flag equal to 0 specifies that partition constraint parameters are not present in the PH.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Han in view of Lim. The advantage is an improvement in video coding.
As per claim 2, Han discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Han does not explicitly teach wherein N is a fixed number.
In the same field of endeavor, Lim teaches wherein N is a fixed number (¶632).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Han in view of Lim. The advantage is an improvement in video coding.
As per claim 3, Han discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Han does not explicitly teach further comprising parsing a value for N from the video bitstream.
In the same field of endeavor, Lim teaches further comprising parsing a value for N from the video bitstream (¶ 632).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Han in view of Lim. The advantage is an improvement in video coding.
As per claim 4, Han discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each subblock of the N equal-sized subblocks is square (¶ 72).
As per claim 5, Han discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first block is a superblock (¶ 25).
As per claim 6, Han discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first block is partitioned into the N equal-sized subblocks when the first block has a size that meets one or more criteria (¶ 81).
As per claim 7, Han discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first partitioning mode is restricted to a predetermined number of uses with the first block (¶ 33).
As per claim 8, Han discloses the method of claim 1, wherein when the first indicator has the first value, the plurality of blocks are partitioned (¶ 26).
As per claim 9, Han discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising parsing, from the video bitstream, a second indicator that indicates whether the first partitioning mode is enabled at a first partitioning point of the first block (¶ 52).
As per claim 10, Han discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the second indicator is signaled in conjunction with a third indicator, the third indicator indicating that the first block is split into more than one subblock (¶ 52 and 72).
As per claim 11, Han discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the second indicator is encoded using a first context, the first context being based on a comparison between a block size of the first block and one or more neighboring block sizes (¶ 129).
As per claim 12, Han discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the first context is the same as a context for partitioning a block into 4 equal-sized subblocks (¶ 72).
As per claim 13, Han discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the first block corresponds to a first picture, and wherein the first context is based on a partitioning flag of a second block of the plurality of blocks, the second block corresponding to another picture, different than the first picture (¶ 52 and 72).
As per claim 14, Han discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the first block corresponds to a first color component, and wherein the first context is based on a partitioning flag of a second block of the plurality of blocks, the second block corresponding to a second color component, different than the first color component (¶ 66).
As per claim 15, Han discloses the method of claim 1, wherein block partitioning context is based on whether the first partitioning mode has been applied to a parent partitioning node for the first block (¶ 75).
As per claim 16, Han discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first indicator is signaled via a high-level syntax of the video bitstream (¶ 52).
Regarding claim 17, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 5 are applicable for claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 4 are applicable for claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 20.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights