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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This office action for US Patent application 18/845196 is responsive to communications filed on December 10, 2025. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending are presented for examination while claims 8 and 20 was canceled.
Response to Arguments
On pages 8 and 9, applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 18 and 19 have been considered. The applicant is arguing that the reference Lee fail to disclose or suggest “a triangle quad tree flag indicating a method of splitting the current block among a rectangle quad tree structure and a triangle quad tree structure, when the quad tree flag indicates the method of splitting the current block is the quad tree structure” as recited in the amended claims. While applicant’s arguments have been considered and understood, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The reason is that Lee indicates very clearly about a quad partition indication information as a flag to indicate whether a current coding unit is partitioned by a quad tree structure (paragraph. 0183). Lee further indicates the multi-type tree partition indication information flag is used in case a current block is partitioned by a multi-type tree structure. In other embodiments, Lee also discloses two different types of quad partitioning including quadrangular quad partitioning (Fig. 9, paragraph. 0265) and triangular quad partitioning (Fig. 11, paragraph. 0271). With these reasons, the examiner does believe the prior art Lee still stands and meets all limitations of amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C §102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1).
Regarding claim 1, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A video decoding method comprising:
determining a tree structure for splitting a current block among candidate tree structures allowed for the current block, based on a block splitting information obtained from a bitstream [i.e. each coding tree unit may be partitioned by using at least one of quad-tree, binary-tree and ternary-tree partitioning method; paragraph. 0083-0084, 0151];
splitting the current block according to the determined tree structure [i.e. split the coding unit based on the tree structure; paragraph. 0259; Fig. 10-11 and 15]; and
decoding a sub block of the current block split from the current block [i.e. paragraph. 0222],
wherein the candidate tree structures comprise a geometric splitting tree structure, and the geometric splitting tree structure comprises at least one of a triangle quad tree structure [i.e. Fig. 11], a geometric binary tree structure [i.e. Fig. 10] or an asymmetric ternary tree structure [i.e. Fig. 15],
wherein the block splitting information comprises:
a quad tree flag indicating a method of splitting the current block among a quad tree structure and a multi-type tree structure [i.e. quad partition information (split_flag) having a first value 1 or a second value 0 to indicate that a current coding unit is partitioned by the quad tree partition structure or multi-type partition structure indicated a multi-type partition indication information; paragraph. 0183, 0190]; and
a triangle quad tree flag indicating a method of splitting the current block among a rectangle quad tree structure and a triangle quad tree structure, when the quad tree flag indicates that the method of splitting the current block is the quad tree structure [i.e. in other embodiment, quad partitioning includes a triangle quad tree (Fig. 11) and rectangle quad tree structure (Fig. 9), paragraph. 265, 271].
Regarding claim 2, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The video decoding method of claim 1, wherein, when the tree structure of the current block is a triangle quad tree structure, the current block is split into four rectangle blocks with the same size [i.e. Fig. 11(a)].
Regarding claim 3, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The video decoding method of claim 1, wherein the geometric binary tree structure comprises a triangle binary tree structure [i.e. Fig. 10] and a rectangle binary tree structure [i.e. Fig. 12].
Regarding claim 4, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 3.
Furthermore, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The video decoding method of claim 3, wherein, when the tree structure of the current block is a triangle binary tree structure, the current block is split into two triangle blocks with the same size [i.e. Fig. 10].
Regarding claim 6, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The video decoding method of claim 1, wherein, when the tree structure of the current block is an asymmetric ternary tree structure, the current block is split into two triangle blocks and one rectangle block [i.e. Fig. 15].
Regarding claim 7, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The video decoding method of claim 1, wherein the block splitting information comprises:
a geometric binary tree flag indicating a method of splitting the current block among a rectangle binary tree structure and a geometric binary tree structure [i.e. split_flag or a coding parameter or partition information; paragraph. 0084, 0151], and
an asymmetric ternary tree flag indicating a method of splitting the current block among a rectangle ternary tree structure and an asymmetric ternary tree structure [i.e. split_flag or a coding parameter or partition information; paragraph. 0084, 0151].
Regarding claim 9, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 7.
Furthermore, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The video decoding method of claim 7,
wherein the block splitting information comprises a binary tree flag indicating the method of splitting the current block among a binary tree structure and a ternary tree structure [i.e. split_flag or a coding parameter or partition information; paragraph. 0084, 0151, Fig. 10 and 15],
wherein the geometric binary tree flag is obtained from the bitstream, when the binary tree flag indicates that the method of splitting the current block is a binary tree structure [i.e. split_flag or a coding parameter or partition information; paragraph. 0084, 0151, Fig. 10], and
wherein the asymmetric ternary tree flag is obtained from the bitstream, when the binary tree flag indicates that the method of splitting the current block is a ternary tree structure [i.e. split_flag or a coding parameter or partition information; paragraph. 0084, 0151, Fig. 15].
Regarding claim 10, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 7.
Furthermore, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The video decoding method of claim 7,
wherein the block splitting information further comprises:
a GBT shape flag indicating the method of splitting the current block among a triangle binary tree structure and a rectangle binary tree structure, when the geometric binary tree flag indicates that the method of splitting the current block is a geometric binary tree structure [i.e. split_flag or a coding parameter or partition information; paragraph. 0084, 0151, Fig. 10 and 12], and
a rectangle binary tree direction flag indicating a rectangle binary tree direction of the current block, when the GBT shape flag indicates that the method of splitting the current block is a rectangle binary tree structure [i.e. Fig. 10].
Regarding claim 11, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 7.
Furthermore, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The video decoding method of claim 7, wherein the block splitting information further comprises an asymmetric ternary tree direction flag indicating an asymmetric ternary tree direction of the current block, when the asymmetric ternary tree flag indicates that the method of splitting the current block is an asymmetric ternary tree structure [i.e. Fig. 15, paragraph. 0151].
Regarding claim 12, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 7.
Furthermore, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The video decoding method of claim 7,
wherein the block splitting information further comprises a split direction flag indicating a split direction of the current block among a vertical direction and a horizontal direction, when the binary tree structure or the ternary tree structure is applied to the current block [i.e. paragraph. 0151, Fig. 12],
wherein the binary tree structure applied to the current block is determined according to the split direction of the current block, when the binary tree structure is applied to the current block [i.e. Fig. 12], and
wherein the ternary tree structure applied to the current block is determined according to the split direction of the current block, when the ternary tree structure is applied to the current block [i.e. Fig. 15].
Regarding claim 13, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 7.
Furthermore, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The video decoding method of claim 7, wherein, upon determining that the geometric splitting tree structure is not allowed for the current block in an upper data unit of the current block or the geometric splitting tree structure is not applied to the current block based on at least one of a size, shape, color component or slice type of the current block, the triangle quad tree flag, the geometric binary tree flag and the asymmetric ternary tree flag are not obtained from the bitstream [i.e. flag indicates whether or not to perform partitioning and encoded into a bitstream; paragraph. 0020, 0084, 0152].
Regarding claim 14, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The video decoding method of claim 1, wherein the decoding the sub block of the current block comprises:
determining a plurality of transform regions from the current block according to a region of the sub block, when the current block is split according to the geometric splitting tree structure;
reordering residual signals of a plurality of transform blocks corresponding to the current block in the plurality of transform regions; and
determining a residual block including the residual signals of the current block by combining the plurality of transform regions [i.e. well-known in the art; Fig. 2, 10-15].
Regarding claim 15, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 14.
Furthermore, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The video decoding method of claim 14, wherein the reordering the residual signals of the plurality of transform blocks corresponding to the current block in the plurality of transform regions comprises: scanning the residual signals of the plurality of transform blocks in a predetermined first scan order; and reordering the scanned residual signals in the plurality of transform regions in a predetermined second scan order [i.e. well-known in the art; paragraph. 0127].
Regarding claim 16, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 15.
Furthermore, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The video decoding method of wherein the predetermined first scan order is determined to be one of a vertical zigzag scan, a horizontal zigzag scan and a diagonal zigzag scan [i.e. paragraph. 0250], and
wherein the predetermined second scan order is determined to be one of a vertical zigzag scan, a horizontal zigzag scan and a diagonal zigzag scan [i.e. paragraph. 0250].
Regarding claim 17, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The video decoding method of claim 1, wherein the sub block is not split in response to the geometric splitting tree structure being determined to be the tree structure of the current block [i.e. when the current block is 4x4 block, the current block may not be partitioned into sub-blocks; paragraph. 0088, 0182, 0192, 0222].
Regarding claims 18, 19 all the claim limitations which are set forth and rejected as per discussion for claim 1.
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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter 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 said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
6. Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C §103 unpatentable over LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) in view of Song et al. (US 20130202030 A1).
Regarding claim 5, LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 3.
In the same field of endeavor, Song et al. (US 20130202030 A1) discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
The video decoding method of claim 3, wherein, when the tree structure of the current block is a rectangle binary tree structure, the current block is split into two quadrangle blocks other than rectangle blocks [i.e. Fig. 2].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of LEE et al. (US 20220070475 A1) with Song et al. (US 20130202030 A1) in order to create a video decoding method as the claimed invention.
New 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications form the examiner should be directed to Nam Pham, whose can be contacted by phone at (571)270-7352. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon—Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, CZEKAJ DAVID, can be reached on (571)272-7327.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) AT 866-217-9197 (too free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NAM D PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights