Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This is a final action on the merits in response to the reply received 12/29/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
On pages 11-12, Applicant argues that none of the references disclose "signaling or receiving a selection of a group of partition modes from a plurality of groups of partition modes" The examiner respectfully disagrees. Liu discloses in [0025], Various control syntax elements may be incorporated in a sequence level, a picture level or a slice level of the bitstream. For example, an enable flag may be used to indicate whether the partition mode group is allowed to include one or more asymmetric partition modes for a corresponding sequence, a corresponding picture or a corresponding slice. In another example, an enable flag may be used to indicate whether the partition mode group is allowed to include one or more non-square partition modes. In another example, an enable flag may be used to indicate whether the partition mode group is allowed to include one or more multiple partition modes to partition the coding unit into more than two sub-blocks. In another example, an enable flag may be used to indicate a total number of sub-blocks that the coding unit is partitioned into the total number of sub-blocks.
On page 12, Applicant argues that Liu fails to disclose “each partition mode segmenting the current block into at least two partitions". On the other hand, 2N X 2N is listed among each of the choices above, which does not segment the block into at least two partitions. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Liu discloses in [0024], wherein the partition mode group consists of 2N×2N mode, 2N×N mode, N×2N mode, and N×N modes and the binary sub-tree for the 2N×2N, 2N×N, N×2N and N×N modes. Therefore, there are at least two partitions.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Chang discloses encoding or decoding the current block by combining a first prediction for the first partition and a second prediction for the second partition ([0114], wherein combine the first prediction partition and the second prediction partition to determine the prediction block). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Liu to disclose encoding or decoding the current block by combining a first prediction for the first partition and a second prediction for the second partition as taught by Chang, to improve coding performance ([0079, Chang). In addition, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Therefore, Liu not explicitly disclosing VVC or AV1 codecs does not make the current motivation conclusionary. Rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 8-12, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160255345 A1-Liu et al (Hereinafter referred to a “Liu”), in view of US 20220329822 A1-Chang et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Chang”).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a video coding method (abstract, method) comprising:
receiving data for a block of pixels to be encoded or decoded as a current block of a current picture of a video (claim 1);
signaling or receiving a selection of a group of partition modes from a plurality of groups of partition modes ([0024]; [0025], Various control syntax elements may be incorporated in a sequence level, a picture level or a slice level of the bitstream. For example, an enable flag may be used to indicate whether the partition mode group is allowed to include one or more asymmetric partition modes for a corresponding sequence, a corresponding picture or a corresponding slice. In another example, an enable flag may be used to indicate whether the partition mode group is allowed to include one or more non-square partition modes. In another example, an enable flag may be used to indicate whether the partition mode group is allowed to include one or more multiple partition modes to partition the coding unit into more than two sub-blocks. In another example, an enable flag may be used to indicate a total number of sub-blocks that the coding unit is partitioned into the total number of sub-blocks), wherein the plurality of partition modes is classified into a plurality of groups of partition modes ([0024]), each partition mode segmenting the current block into at least two partitions ([0024]);
selecting a partition mode from the selected group of partition modes ([0046], wherein partition mode selected);
segmenting the current block into at least first and second partitions according to the selected partition mode ([0046], wherein when 2N×(N/2) partition mode or (N/2)×2N partition mode is selected, the 2N×2N IntraBC CU is evenly split into four 2N×(N/2) or (N/2)×2N line-based partitions); and
encoding or decoding the current block (claim 1, encoding).
Liu fails to disclose encoding or decoding the current block by combining a first prediction for the first partition and a second prediction for the second partition
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chang discloses encoding or decoding the current block by combining a first prediction for the first partition and a second prediction for the second partition ([0114], wherein combine the first prediction partition and the second prediction partition to determine the prediction block)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Liu to disclose encoding or decoding the current block by combining a first prediction for the first partition and a second prediction for the second partition as taught by Chang, to improve coding performance ([0079, Chang).
Regarding claim 8, Chang discloses the video coding method of claim 1, further comprising: computing a cost for each merge candidate of each of first and second partitions of the current block formed by the selected partition mode ( Chang, [0167] cost)); selecting a set of at least two merge candidates for the first and second partitions formed by the selected partition mode based on the computed costs (Chang, [0087])); wherein the first and second predictions are based on the selected set of at least two merge candidates (Chang [0096-0097]; [0112-0114], [0125]).
Regarding claim 9, Chang discloses the video coding method of claim 8, further comprising: for each partition mode of the plurality of partition modes: computing a cost for each set of at least two merge candidates for the at least two partitions formed by the partition mode (Chang, [0167], TM cost of merge candidates); and identifying a best set of at least two merge candidates for the at least two partitions based on the computed costs of the set of at least two merge candidates (Change [0081]); wherein the selected partition mode is selected based on the computed costs of the best set of at least two merge candidates of the plurality of partition modes ([0095], lowest cost).
Regarding claim 10, Chang discloses the video coding method of claim 8, wherein the cost for a set of at least two merge candidates for the at least two partitions formed by the partition mode is a template matching cost or a boundary matching cost of using the set of at least two merge candidates and the partition mode to encode the current block ([0120], Template matching).
Regarding claim 11, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 8 and are applicable for claim 12.
Regarding claim 15, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 15, Chang discloses encoder or decoder circuit (Fig 2-3)
Regarding claim 16, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 17.
Claim(s) 2-7, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160255345 A1-Liu et al (Hereinafter referred to a “Liu”), in view of US US 20220329822 A1-Chang et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Chang”), in view of US 20230231992 A1-Chen et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Chen”).
Regarding claim 2, Chang discloses the video coding method of claim 1 computing a cost ( [0167]),
Liu and Chang fail to disclose computing a cost for encoding the current block for each partition mode of the plurality of partition modes; identifying a best partition mode from the plurality of partition modes based on the computed costs; and selecting a group of partition modes that includes the identified best partition mode.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chen discloses computing a cost for encoding the current block for each partition mode of the plurality of partition modes ([0010], wherein determine a respective cost associated with a respective split mode); identifying a best partition mode from the plurality of partition modes based on the computed costs ([0186]); and selecting a group of partition modes that includes the identified best partition mode ([0186], group is selected based on the cost).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Liu and Chang to disclose computing a cost for encoding the current block for each partition mode of the plurality of partition modes; identifying a best partition mode from the plurality of partition modes based on the computed costs; and selecting a group of partition modes that includes the identified best partition mode as taught by Chen, to improve coding performance ([0263], Chen).
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses the video coding method of claim 2, wherein the cost for encoding the current block for a partition mode is a template matching cost or a boundary matching cost of using the partition mode to encode the current block ([0375], template matching. Motivation is the same as for claim 2).
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses the video coding method of claim 2, wherein identifying the best partition mode comprises identifying a lowest cost partition mode for each group of the plurality of groups of partition modes ([0061], lowest cost. Motivation is the same as for claim 2).
Regarding claim 5, Chang discloses the video coding method of claim 1 computing a cost ([0167]),
Liu and Chang fail to disclose computing a cost for encoding the current block for each partition mode in the selected group of partition modes.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chen discloses computing a cost for encoding the current block for each partition mode in the selected group ([0010], wherein determine a respective cost associated with a respective split mode); ([0186]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Liu and Chang to disclose computing a cost for encoding the current block for each partition mode in the selected group of partition modes as taught by Chen, to improve coding performance ([0263], Chen).
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses the video coding method of claim 5, wherein selecting a partition mode from the selected group of partition modes comprises selecting a lowest cost partition mode from the selected group of partition modes ([0061], lowest cost. Motivation is the same as for claim 5).
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses the video coding method of claim 5, wherein selecting a partition mode from the selected group of partition modes comprises re-ordering the partition modes in the selected group according to the computed costs ([0189], reordering) and signaling or receiving a selection of a partition mode based on the re-ordering ([0189], wherein signaling based on reordering).
Regarding claim 13, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 7 and are applicable for claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 6 and are applicable for claim 14.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LERON BECK whose telephone number is (571)270-1175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
LERON . BECK
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/LERON BECK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights