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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figs. 12-15 and 19-20 have unclear markings, unfinished lines and blurry or partially spelled out words. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: as currently written, the programs stored on the memory have nothing to do with the method of claim 1 or the method steps of claim 16, any programs stored on memory executable by the processor meet the limitations of claims 13 and 16. The Examiner suggests language such as the processor executes the programs to perform the method of claim 1.
Claims 15 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: as best understood by the Examiner, on line 1, “storing” should be used instead of “carrying” to improve clarity. Further, on line 2, “for executing” could be interpreted as intended use resulting in no weight given to the method limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is 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 1 recites the limitation "a grid" twice in lines 6-7. It is unclear whether the second instance of “a grid” on line 7 is a new grid or the same grid first mentioned on line 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-10, 13, 15-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skupin et al. (U.S. 2021/0006783), hereinafter Skupin in view of Hong et al. (U.S. 2023/0388494), hereinafter Hong. Skupin was cited on the Applicant’s IDS dated 10/16/24.
Regarding claim 1, Skupin discloses a method for encoding a video picture into a bitstream of encoded video picture data, wherein the method comprises:
splitting the video picture into rectangular picture areas, a size of at least one rectangular picture area being different from an integer multiple of a default size of coding-tree unit encoded into the bitstream (Skupin [0097]-[0098] and fig. 4);
determining a grid of coding-tree units for each rectangular picture area, a grid of coding-tree units representing a spatial partition of a rectangular picture area, each coding-tree unit representing a sub-area of a rectangular picture area (Skupin [0097]-[0098] and fig. 4), the sub-area being subdivided according to a coding tree (Skupin [0038], [0037] and fig. 12);
obtaining encoded video picture data (Skupin [0065]-[0066] and fig. 1); and
writing the encoded video picture data into the bitstream (Skupin [0098], [0065]-[0066] and fig. 1).
Skupin does not explicitly disclose encoding at least one coding unit (CU) of a coding tree associated with each coding tree unit (CTU) of each grid of coding-tree unit.
However, Hong teaches obtaining encoded video picture data by encoding at least one coding unit (CU) of a coding tree associated with each coding tree unit (CTU) of each grid of coding-tree unit (Hong [0036])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Skupin’s method with the missing limitations as taught by Hong to improve coding efficiency by improving prediction performance, providing more flexibility without significantly increasing computational complexity (Hong [0014]).
Regarding claim 2, Skupin in view of Hong teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
encoding, into the bitstream, partitioning information data representative of each grid of coding-tree units (Skupin [0086]).
Regarding claim 5, Skupin in view of Hong teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the video picture is split according to a decomposition tree and at least one leaf of the decomposition tree is a rectangular picture area (Hong [0041] and fig. 2).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Skupin in view of Hong teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the decomposition tree is a binary decomposition tree (Hong [0041] and fig. 2), and wherein a split line offset is encoded into the bitstream to indicate a position of a line splitting a picture area associated with a parent into two sub-areas associated with two child nodes (Hong [0123]).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Skupin in view of Hong teaches a method of decoding a video picture from a bitstream of encoded video picture data, wherein the method comprises:
determining multiple grids of coding-tree units (Skupin [0097]-[0098] and fig. 4);
each grid of coding-tree units covering a rectangular picture area of the video picture (Skupin [0097]-[0098] and fig. 4);
a size of at least one rectangular picture area being different from an integer multiple of a default size of coding-tree unit decoded from the bitstream (Skupin [0097]-[0098] and fig. 4);
each coding-tree unit representing a sub-area of a rectangular picture area (Skupin [0097]-[0098] and fig. 4), the sub-area being subdivided according to a coding tree (Skupin [0038], [0037] and fig. 12);
obtaining video picture data by decoding (Skupin [0069] and fig. 2) at least one coding unit (CU) of a coding tree associated with each coding tree unit (CTU) of each grid of coding-tree units from the bitstream (Skupin [0124] and Hong [0036]); and
obtaining the video picture from the video picture data (Skupin [0098], [0069] and fig. 2).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Skupin in view of Hong teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the multiple grids of coding-tree units are determined from partitioning information data decoded from the bitstream (Skupin [0086], claim 8 recites analogous limitations to claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 8 discloses an inverse of encoding and Skupin discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Skupin figs. 1 and 2)).
Regarding claim 9, Skupin in view of Hong teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the rectangular picture areas are defined from sub-pictures, tiles or slices (Skupin [0148], figs. 13 and 14), each tile being a sequence of coding-tree units, a slice comprising an integer number of tiles or an integer number of consecutive coding-tree unit rows within a tile, each of the coding-tree units having a size equals to the default size (Skupin [0097]-[0098] and fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Skupin in view of Hong teaches the method of claim 7, wherein a single grid of coding-tree units is determined by partitioning a rectangular picture area (Skupin [0097]-[0098] and fig. 4), and wherein the grid of coding-tree units is used for encoding/decoding each component of the rectangular picture area (Skupin figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 13, Skupin in view of Hong teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a processor (Skupin [0183] and [0341]); and
a memory storing programs executable by the processor (Skupin [0013] and [0744]);
wherein the processor is configured to perform the method of claim 1 (Skupin [0744], further, see claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, Skupin in view of Hong teaches a non-transitory storage medium carrying instructions of program code for executing the method (Skupin [0013]) of claim 1 (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, Skupin in view of Hong teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a processor (Skupin [0341]); and
a memory storing programs executable by the processor (Skupin [0014] and [0744]);
wherein the processor is configured to perform (Skupin [0744]):
determining multiple grids of coding-tree units (Skupin [0097]-[0098] and fig. 4);
each grid of coding-tree units covering a rectangular picture area of the video picture (Skupin [0097]-[0098] and fig. 4);
a size of at least one rectangular picture area being different from an integer multiple of a default size of coding-tree unit decoded from the bitstream (Skupin [0097]-[0098] and fig. 4);
each coding-tree unit representing a sub-area of a rectangular picture area (Skupin [0097]-[0098] and fig. 4), the sub-area being subdivided according to a coding tree (Skupin [0038], [0037] and fig. 12);
obtaining video picture data by decoding (Skupin [0069] and fig. 2) at least one coding unit (CU) of a coding tree associated with each coding tree unit (CTU) of each grid of coding-tree units from the bitstream (Skupin [0124] and Hong [0036]); and
obtaining the video picture from the video picture data (Skupin [0098], [0069] and fig. 2).
The same motivation or claim 1 applies to claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Skupin in view of Hong teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the multiple grids of coding-tree units are determined from partitioning information data decoded from the bitstream (see claim 8).
Regarding claim 18, Skupin in view of Hong teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the rectangular picture areas are defined from sub-pictures, tiles or slices, each tile being a sequence of coding-tree units, a slice comprising an integer number of tiles or an integer number of consecutive coding-tree unit rows within a tile, each of the coding-tree units having a size equals to the default size (see claim 9).
Regarding claim 19, Skupin in view of Hong teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein a single grid of coding-tree units is determined by partitioning a rectangular picture area, and wherein the grid of coding-tree units is used for encoding/decoding each component of the rectangular picture area (see claim 10).
Regarding claim 21, Skupin in view of Hong teaches a non-transitory storage medium carrying instructions of program code for executing the method (Skupin [0014]) of claim 7 (see claim 7).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skupin in view of Hong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Misra et al. (“An Overview of Tiles in HEVC”, IEEE Journal, December 2013), hereinafter Misra 2013.
Regarding claim 3, Skupin in view of Hong teaches the method of claim 1, comprising spatial partitioning and load balancing (Skupin [0008] and [0089]). Skupin does not explicitly disclose wherein the video picture is split into rectangular picture areas to separate picture areas with low spatial activity from picture areas with high spatial activity of the video picture.
However, Misra 2013 teaches, wherein the video picture is split into rectangular picture areas to separate picture areas with low spatial activity from picture areas with high spatial activity of the video picture (Misra 2013 p. 973, section IV, third paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Skupin in view of Hong with the missing limitations as taught by Misra 2013 to achieve proper load balancing and improve coding efficiency as a result (Misra 2013 p. 973, section IV, third paragraph).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skupin in view of Hong and Misra 2013 as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Agrafiotis, D. et al., "Towards Efficient Context-Specific Video Coding Based on Gaze-Tracking Analysis", ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications and Applications, Vol.3, No. 4, Article 21, December 2007, hereinafter Agrafiotis. Agrafiotis was cited in the Applicant’s IDS dated 10/16/24.
Regarding claim 4 Skupin in view of Hong and Misra 2013 teaches the method of claim 3. Skupin does not explicitly disclose wherein a spatial activity of the video picture is determined by detecting vertical and horizontal edges from video picture content.
However Agrafiotis teaches, wherein a spatial activity of the video picture is determined by detecting vertical and horizontal edges from video picture content (Agrafiotis p. 22:8, section 3.1, second paragraph and p. 22:9, fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Skupin in view of Hong and Misra 2013 with the missing limitations as taught by Agrafiotis to achieve bit-rate savings and avoid excessive distortion while at the same time increasing priority for potentially attended regions (Agrafiotis p. 22:8, section 3).
Claim(s) 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skupin in view of Hong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Misra, K.. et al.. "Tools for Video Coding Beyond HEVC: Flexible Partitioning, Motion Vector Coding, Luma Adaptive Quantization, and Improved Deblocking", IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, Vol. 30, No. 5, May 2020, hereinafter Misra 2020. Misra 2020 was cited in the Applicant’s IDS dated 10/16/24.
Regarding claim 11, Skupin in view of Hong teaches the method of claim 7. Skupin does not explicitly disclose
However, Misra 2020 teaches, wherein a grid of coding-tree units is determined per component of a rectangular picture area (Misra 2020 p. 1362, section 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Skupin in view of Hong with the missing limitations as taught by Misra 2020 to be able to separate partitioning for luma and chroma color channels using a flexible partitioning strategy (Misra 2020 p. 1362, section 2).
Regarding claim 20, Skupin in view of Hong and Misra 2020 teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein a grid of coding-tree units is determined per component of a rectangular picture area (see claim 11).
The same motivation for claim 11 applies to claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dalai, M. et al., "Segmentation Based Image Coding With l∞ Norm Error Control", Universitá degli Studi di Brescia, December 15, 2004 teaches a decomposition tree for a rectangular picture area (Dalai p. 1, Abstract and p. 2, fig. 1) and a binary decomposition tree (Dalai p. 2, fig. 1(a)). Dalai was cited in the Applicant’s IDS dated 10/16/24..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW KWAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571)272-7331. 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.
/MATTHEW K KWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482