DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions..
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on November 04, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant believes that the application is in condition for allowance and argues that the cited references fail to teach, disclose or suggest all limitations of claims 1 and 2. In particular, Applicant asserts that the cited references fail to disclose “when the slice is configured to contain an integer number of complete tiles, all coding tree units in each of the integer number of complete tiles belong to the slice and each tile in the slice does not traverse a boundary of the slice, and wherein when the tile is configured to contain an integer number of complete slices, all coding tree units in each of the integer number of complete slices belong to the tile and each slice in the tile does not traverse a boundary of the tile.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant submits that Applicant’s arguments rely on an unduly narrow claim construction.
Additionally, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion that the cited references fail to disclose.
The limitations in question are recited in the form:
“ wherein when the slice is configured to contain an integer number of complete tiles…”
and wherein when the tile is configured to contain an integer number of complete slices,…”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claim language “when …configured to” is constructed as conditional language. It imposes the stated boundary and non-traversal constraints only in those implementations where the stated condition is met, namely a slice containing an integer number of complete tiles or a tile containing am integer number of complete slice. The claims do not positively require that the methods always employs such configuration in every implementation ( e.g., the claims do not recite an affirmative step of “configuring” the slice and/or tile into the recited relationships)
Accordingly, the “when” clauses are given patentable weight as conditional constraints, but they do not operate as universal exclusion of the other tile and/or slice relationship unless such universality is positively recited.
Additionally, Applicants argues that amending claim 2 from “obtaining” to “generating” now positively recites "generating a bitstream" as an active step of the claimed transmission method. Therefore, the processes referenced in the claim that generates the bitstream do form part of the transmitting method, and thus needs to be considered as part of the scope of the claim.
Examiner agrees that amended claim 2 now positively recites "generating a bitstream" and that this step now is given patentable weight. However, Applicant’s arguments is not persuasive because the “generating” step, as claimed, correspond to the same encoding framework recited in claim 1 which is disclosed or rendered obvious by the same prior art of records for the reasons set forth above.
…
For the reasons set forth above, claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Segall et al. in view of Budagavi et al.
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 at the time the invention was made 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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Segall et al. (US 20130016786 A1), hereinafter referred to as Segall, view of Budagavi et al. (US 20120177104 A1), hereinafter referred to as Budagavi.
Regarding claim 1, Segall discloses an image encoding method by an encoding apparatus, the method comprising:
partitioning a current picture into one or more tiles and one or more slices, wherein a tile is a rectangular region comprising coding tree units and a slice is a sequence of coding tree units (Segall, ¶¶ [0048]- [0049]; and Figs. 7 and 8: discloses dividing an image into at least one rectangular tile comprising LCUs (LCU=CTU) and defining at least one slice as a sequency of LCUs); and
encoding the current picture based on the one or more tiles and the one or more slices to output a bitstream including image information, wherein the image information includes information on the tile and information on the slice (Segall, ¶¶ [0070]- [0075], [0079] and [0089]- [0090]: reveals encoding an image into a bitstream that includes information on tiles and slices),
wherein when the slice is configured to contain an integer number of complete tiles, all coding tree units in each of the integer number of complete tiles belong to the slice and each tile in the slice does not traverse a boundary of the slice, and wherein when the tile is configured to contain an integer number of complete slices, all coding tree units in each of the integer number of complete slices belong to the tile and each slice in the tile does not traverse a boundary of the tile (Segall, ¶¶ [0048] - [0049]; and Figs.7 and 8; discloses plural tiles located withing one slice, i.e., the slice spans multiple tiles, so the LCUs of those tiles belong to that slice. As noted above, the claim language “when …configured to” is constructed as conditional language and he claim language “when …configured to” is constructed as conditional language).
Segall does not explicitly disclose wherein a coding tree unit is split into coding units based on a quad-tree structure,
However, Budagavi from the same or similar endeavor of data compression discloses wherein a coding tree unit is split into coding units based on a quad-tree structure (Budagavi, ¶ [0022] – quadtree partitioning LCU into CUs),
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Segall to add the teachings of Budagavi as above in order to reduce computational complexity (Budagavi, [0008]). Further, both disclosures operate in HEVC using same syntax ecosystem. It would have been routine for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use known technique to improve similar methods.
Regarding claim 2, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the image encoding method of claim 1, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of a transmission method for performing the same or equivalent functionality. Examiner notes that the additional step of transmitting the data comprising the bitstream is disclosed by Segall in ¶ [0071] which discloses transmitting bitstream.
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 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 Atala can be reached on (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 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 (toll-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.
/FABIO S LIMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486