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 filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The thrust of applicant’s remarks is specifically related to the amendments to the claims for clarification and will be apparent in the rejections below.
However, as a brief note, the examiner points to previously cited portions of ZHANG to show how syntax elements are encoded into video unit levels to indicate maximum depth constraints linked to split types, among others.
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) 1-14 and 16/17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG et al., (US 2021/0368185 A1) referred to as ZHANG hereinafter in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Regarding claim 1, ZHANG shows a video coding method comprising:
signaling or receiving a maximum depth of a particular split type that is localized to the current block (Paragraphs [0421]-[0423] disclose a particular current block, its associated split/partition type and obtaining indication of a maximum depth associated.);
encoding or decoding one or more syntax elements in the current block to indicate a maximum depth of a particular split type that is allowed for splitting the current block (Paragraph [0423]; Paragraph [0426] discloses wherein said elements are signaled into one of many various sets, headers or other locations.);
constraining a partitioning operation of any of a plurality of blocks within the current block according to the indicated maximum depth for the particular split type (Paragraphs [0421]-[0423] disclose a particular condition in which partitioning takes place. This is equivalent to a constraint for purposes of examination.); and
encoding or decoding the current block based on the constrained partitioning operation (Paragraph [0418] discloses performing a conversion based on the conditioned partitioning operation; Paragraph [0572] shows wherein a 'conversion' is an encoding operation.).
However, ZHANG fails to specifically disclose receiving data to be encoded or decoded as a current block of a plurality of blocks in a current picture of a video. The examiner is taking OFFICIAL NOTICE that this particular limitation would be common knowledge to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
While not rising to the level of inherently necessary for functioning of the encoder/decoder as the data could be present without reception, it is certainly well within the skillset to readily understand the typical need for reception of video data in order to operate a typical coding scheme.
As receipt of video data in a video coding scheme is typically required step/feature that has been done since the dawn of the technology, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art to include this step, motivated by the need to have data to be coded in a coder.
Regarding claim 2, ZHANG shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein the current block is a coding tree unit (CTU) (Paragraph [0425]).
Regarding claim 3, ZHANG shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein the current block is a local control unit (LCU), wherein the maximum depth of the particular split type is one of a set of constraints that are adaptive to different LCUs in the current picture.
Regarding claim 4, ZHANG shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein the particular split type is one of quad-tree (QT) splitting (Paragraph [0427]), multi-type tree (MTT) splitting (Paragraph [0427]), ternary-tree (TT) splitting (Paragraph [0476]), and binary- tree (BT) splitting (Paragraph [0476]). (*It is noted by the examiner that this being a group of alternatives, only split type need be shown but for purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner is showing where ZHANG teaches all.)
Regarding claim 5, ZHANG shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein the partitioning operation comprises a split operation of the particular split type (Paragraph [0421]), wherein the split operation is disallowed when the maximum depth for the particular split type is reached (Paragraph [0487] discloses wherein a partition is not allowed when said condition exists, i.e., maximum depth is reached.).
Regarding claim 6, ZHANG shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein when the maximum depth for the particular split type is reached at a current split-partition of the current block, further splitting by the particular split type is inferred to be disabled for the current split-partition and a syntax element for selecting the particular split type is bypassed for the current split-partition (While there are numerous examples, Paragraphs [0111]-[0118] demonstrate wherein the syntax is such that a binary split is bypassed when a threshold maximum depth is reached and flag set to FALSE.).
Regarding claim 7, ZHANG shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein when the particular split type is quad-tree (QT) splitting and the maximum depth for the QT splitting is reached at a current split- partition, a syntax element for splitting the current split-partition into quad-tree (QT) partitions is bypassed and inferred to be disallowing the splitting (See Paragraph [0041] for specifics related to quad-based splitting along with the above citations.).
Regarding claim 8, ZHANG shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein when a maximum depth for multi-type tree (MTT) splitting is zero, a syntax element for splitting a current split-partition of the current block into quad-tree (QT) partitions is bypassed and inferred to activate the QT splitting when the current split-partition is determined to be further split (Paragraphs [0069]-[0070] discloses an MTT set to 0 or 1 for max depth for a quadtree leaf.).
Regarding claim 9, ZHANG shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein when the particular split type is multitype-tree (MTT) splitting and a maximum depth for MTT splitting is reached for a current split-partition, a syntax element for splitting the current split-partition into more than one partitions is bypassed and inferred to be disallowing the splitting (FIG. 8 demonstrates wherein the tree can be of multi-type-tree (MTT) structure. Paragraph [0487] discloses wherein a partition is not allowed when said condition exists, i.e., maximum depth is reached.).
Regarding claim 10, ZHANG shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein when a depth of multi- type tree (MTT) splitting is greater than zero, a syntax element for indicating maximum binary tree (BT) or ternary tree (TT) depth for the current block is signaled (FIG. 8 demonstrates wherein splitting takes place (inherently greater than zero), signaling exists for both BT and TT depth.).
Regarding claim 11, ZHANG shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein a flag for selecting between binary tree (BT) or ternary tree (TT) splitting is bypassed when a maximum depth of binary tree (BT) or ternary tree (TT) is reached at a current split partition of the current block (FIG. 8 demonstrates wherein a current split signal reaches zero, a split is bypassed and a non-split occurs.).
Regarding claim 12, ZHANG shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein when a depth of multi- type tree (MTT) splitting is greater than zero in the current block, a syntax element for indicating whether vertical or horizontal splitting is allowed in the current block is signaled (Paragraph [0047]; See also FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 13, ZHANG shows the limitations of claim 12 as applied above, and further shows wherein the syntax element for indicating multi-type tree (MTT) vertical or horizontal splitting is bypassed when vertical splitting or horizontal splitting of a current split-partition is not allowed for the current block (It is inherent that if splitting is not allowed that any type of split, vertical, horizontal or otherwise is not allowed. This is demonstrated by a non-split command/signal.).
Regarding claim 14, ZHANG shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows further comprising, after a multi- type tree (MTT) splitting is encountered for the current block, signaling or receiving a syntax element to indicate whether ternary tree (TT) splitting is used or allowed in the current block (Paragraphs [0063]-[0067] signal a ternary tree split existing.).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, the recite substantially identical subject matter to that of claim 1 above except for circuitry provided to do so (Claim 16). That is clearly shown by ZHANG in FIG. 12.
The steps and functional elements are rejected under the same rationale as per claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior art, in combination with the elements of claims 1 and 14 fail to show wherein when TT splitting is indicated by the syntax element to not be used for the current block, a flag for indicating whether to perform binary tree (BT) splitting is bypassed.
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 JUSTIN W. RIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7.00 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, Jamie J Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. 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.
JUSTIN W. RIDER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/Justin W Rider/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486