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 Amendment
This Office Action is in response to communications filed 12/16/2025. Claims 1-3 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the claims and the abstract have priority for the limitation “wherein a size of the current image block is expressed as 16 x H, with H representing a height of the current image block and 16 is a width of the current image block, wherein H is not equal to 16, and wherein a size of each of the four rectangular subblocks is expressed as 16 x H/4.” The applicant provided a highlight part of Figure 3 to provide support.
In response to the arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 3 as it appears is a 32X32 and A, B, C and D are 4 X 16 and 1, 2, 3, 4 are 16 X 4. The smaller become 1 X 8 as described and highlighted by the applicant. The partition highlighted by the applicant is vertical not horizontal as the claim requires (it shows 1X16 if the size of the block was 64X64 or 1X8 if the size of the block is 32X32) . The figure and its associated description of highlighted part- paragraph 0032 do not disclose the 16 X H / 4.
The priority objections for the claim and specification are maintained. It is also noted that foreign priority is also not perfected and its Figure 3 discloses the same features. Three new references are provided to disclose the limitations.
Regarding Claim 3’s claim interpretation, the applicant argues the amendment gives patentable weight.
In response to the arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The preamble addition of “when decoded by the coding device” is intended use and is not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.02. The claim language also does not make it clear whether the non-transitory computer readable storage medium contains the instructions to perform the a video coding process.
The prior art rejection is maintained as the claim interpretation is maintained. Therefore, Lee discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream (Figure 5, paragraph 0051) that when decoded by a coding device, is used by the coding device to generate a vide, the bitstream including information that specifies whether a current image block is required to be partitioned.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Priority
Applicant's claim for foreign priority is acknowledged. However, the foreign priority applications upon which priority is claimed has not been perfected and the Figure while not in English shows the identical features which is currently at issue for the support of 16 X H partitioned to be 16 X H/4.
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 13/938,992, filed 07/10/2013, and adds and claims additional disclosure not presented in the prior application. Since this application names an inventor or inventors named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78.
a. The applicant may cancel the limitation. These claim limitations were not disclosed in the parent application.
OR
The applicant may amend the limitation to be in accordance with the specification of the parent application.
b. Should the applicant not cancel the claim limitations or amend the limitations as suggested, then the applicant should convert the application to a continuation in part and the new limitations will receive the current application’s filing date of 06/27/2015.
i. The applicant would be required to file a new oath and declaration.
ii. The claim limitations would be required to be added to the specification without adding any other new matter. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claims 1-3 and the Abstract recite “wherein a size of the current image block is expressed as 16 x H, with H representing a height of the current image block and 16 is a width of the current image block, wherein H is not equal to 16, and wherein a size of each of the four rectangular subblocks is expressed as 16 x H/4.”
The applicant's specification discloses NXM and that N is four times greater and that it can be subdivided into 4 image subblocks as defined in the parent application (paragraphs 0026, 0029, 0030, 0032, please provide the support for the limitations ).
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Note the applicant has included subject matter not found in the disclosure of the application. Please provide only details found in the specification – please see priority objection above.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1-2 recite “in response to determine…” The language is awkwardly worded. The Office suggests –in response to determining--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” Id. However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. Id.
Claim 3 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream (i.e. content of information) and the body of the claim recites steps/elements that describe how the video information is partitioned. These steps are not performed by an intended computer, and the bitstream is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the information and intended computer system. Therefore, those claim limitations are afforded very little patentable weight.
It is also noted that Claim 3 recites “when decoded by the coding device.” The limitation is intended use and is not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.02
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claim 3 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US 2006/0164268 and hereafter referred to as “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream (Figure 5, paragraph 0051) that when decoded by a coding device, is used by the coding device to generate a vide, the bitstream including information that specifies whether a current image block is required to be partitioned and whether the current image block is required to be partitioned in a horizontal direction or a vertical direction; wherein when the information specifies that the current image block is required to be partitioned and the current image block is required to be partitioned in the horizontal direction, the current image block is partitioned into four rectangular subblocks, wherein a size of the current image block is expressed as 16 × H, with 16 representing a width of the current image block and H is a height of the current image block, wherein H is not equal to 16, and wherein a size of each of the four rectangular subblocks is expressed as 16 x H/4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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 negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alshina et al (US 2011/0135000 and hereafter referred to as “Alshina”) in view of Walls (US 2009/0067508).
Regarding Claim 1, Alshina discloses a decoding method, comprising:
receiving a bitstream (Figure 5, Figure 2 );
parsing the bitstream to determine that current image block is required to be partitioned (Figure 5, Figure 6, Page 7, paragraph 0113, Page 4, paragraph 0069, 0075, Page 3, paragraph 0049, 0050, Figure 16A-16C, Page 9, paragraph 0145, 0147, 0149, Figure 13);
in response to determine that the current image block is required to be partitioned, parsing the bitstream to determine a partition direction, wherein the partition direction is the horizontal direction (Page 3, paragraph 0058 – dividing horizontally [or vertically] at a ratio of 1:n, n:1, blocks shown in Figure 13, Figure 3 and Figure 6, Figure 5, Page 7, paragraph 0109-0111, Page 4, paragraph 0069, 0075, Page 3, paragraph 0049, 0050, Figure 16A-16C, Page 9, paragraph 0145, 0147, 0149);
partitioning the current image block into four rectangular subblocks, wherein a size of the current image block is expressed as 16 x H, with H representing a height of the current image block and 16 is a width of the current image block, wherein H is not equal to 16, wherein a size of each of the four rectangular subblocks is expressed as 16 x H/n (Page 3, paragraph 0058 – dividing horizontally [or vertically] at a ratio of 1:n, n:1, blocks shown in Figure 13, Figure 3 and Figure 6 (i.e. 16X8, 16X32), Figure 5, Page 7, paragraph 0109-0111, Page 4, paragraph 0069, 0075, Page 3, paragraph 0049, 0050, Figure 16A-16C, Page 9, paragraph 0145, 0147, 0149) , and
reconstructing the current image block based on the four rectangular subblocks (Page 5, paragraph 0084-0086, Figure 1, Figure 5, 595, Figure 6, Page 7, paragraph 0109-0111, Page 4, paragraph 0069, 0075, Page 3, paragraph 0049, 0050, Figure 16A-16C, Page 9, paragraph 0145, 0147, 0149, Figure 13).
Alshina discloses that N is an integer which would include N = 4. However, the examiner is providing an explicitly teach for partitioning H/4 to teach the limitation “wherein a size of each of the four rectangular subblocks is expressed as 16 x H/4.”
Walls discloses partitioning the current image block into four rectangular subblocks when the partition direction is the horizontal direction, wherein a size of the current image block is expressed as 16 x H, with H representing a height of the current image block and 16 is a width of the current image block, wherein H is not equal to 16, and wherein a size of each of the four rectangular subblocks is expressed as 16 x H/4 (Page 2, paragraph 0024, 0029). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify Alshina to include the missing limitation as taught by Walls in order to provide sensitivity to video moving and provide better immunity to comb filter artifacts (Page 2, paragraph 0024) as disclosed by Walls.
Regarding Claim 2, Alshina discloses an encoding method, comprising:
determining that a current image block is required to be partitioned (Figure 5, Figure 6, Page 7, paragraph 0113, Page 4, paragraph 0069, 0075, Page 3, paragraph 0049, 0050, Figure 16A-16C, Page 9, paragraph 0145, 0147, 0149, Figure 13);
in response to determine that the current image block being required to be partitioned, determining that the current image block is required to be partitioned in a horizontal direction (Figure 5, Figure 6, Page 7, paragraph 0113, Page 4, paragraph 0069, 0075, Page 3, paragraph 0049, 0050, Figure 16A-16C, Page 9, paragraph 0145, 0147, 0149, Figure 13);
in response to the current image block being required to be partitioned in the horizontal direction, partitioning the current image block into four rectangular subblocks, wherein a size of the current image block is expressed as 16 × H, with 16 representing a width of the current image block and H is a height of the current image block, wherein H is not equal to 16, and wherein a size of each of the four rectangular subblocks is expressed as 16 x H/n (Page 3, paragraph 0058 – dividing horizontally [or vertically] at a ratio of 1:n, n:1, blocks shown in Figure 13, Figure 3 and Figure 6 (i.e. 16X8, 16X32), Figure 5, Page 7, paragraph 0109-0111, Page 4, paragraph 0069, 0075, Page 3, paragraph 0049, 0050, Figure 16A-16C, Page 9, paragraph 0145, 0147, 0149); and
writing information into a bitstream, wherein the information specifies whether the current image block is required to be partitioned and whether the current image block is required to be partitioned in the horizontal direction or the vertical direction (Figure 6, Page 3, paragraph 0058 –in Figure 13, Figure 3, Figure 5, Page 7, paragraph 0109-0111, Page 4, paragraph 0069, 0075, Page 3, paragraph 0049, 0050, Figure 16A-16C, Page 9, paragraph 0145, 0147, 0149).
Alshina discloses that N is an integer which would include N = 4. However, the examiner is providing an explicitly teach for partitioning H/4 to teach the limitation “wherein a size of each of the four rectangular subblocks is expressed as 16 x H/4.”
Walls discloses partitioning the current image block into four rectangular subblocks when the partition direction is the horizontal direction, wherein a size of the current image block is expressed as 16 x H, with H representing a height of the current image block and 16 is a width of the current image block, wherein H is not equal to 16, and wherein a size of each of the four rectangular subblocks is expressed as 16 x H/4 (Page 2, paragraph 0024, 0029). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify Alshina to include the missing limitation as taught by Walls in order to provide sensitivity to video moving and provide better immunity to comb filter artifacts (Page 2, paragraph 0024) as disclosed by Walls.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alshina et al (US 2011/0135000 and hereafter referred to as “Alshina”) in view of Oguz et al (US 2009/0109341 and hereafter referred to as “Oguz”).
Regarding Claim 1, Alshina discloses a decoding method, comprising:
receiving a bitstream (Figure 5, Figure 2 );
parsing the bitstream to determine that current image block is required to be partitioned (Figure 5, Figure 6, Page 7, paragraph 0113, Page 4, paragraph 0069, 0075, Page 3, paragraph 0049, 0050, Figure 16A-16C, Page 9, paragraph 0145, 0147, 0149, Figure 13);
in response to determine that the current image block is required to be partitioned, parsing the bitstream to determine a partition direction, wherein the partition direction is the horizontal direction (Page 3, paragraph 0058 – dividing horizontally [or vertically] at a ratio of 1:n, n:1, blocks shown in Figure 13, Figure 3 and Figure 6, Figure 5, Page 7, paragraph 0109-0111, Page 4, paragraph 0069, 0075, Page 3, paragraph 0049, 0050, Figure 16A-16C, Page 9, paragraph 0145, 0147, 0149);
partitioning the current image block into four rectangular subblocks, wherein a size of the current image block is expressed as 16 x H, with H representing a height of the current image block and 16 is a width of the current image block, wherein H is not equal to 16, wherein a size of each of the four rectangular subblocks is expressed as 16 x H/n (Page 3, paragraph 0058 – dividing horizontally [or vertically] at a ratio of 1:n, n:1, blocks shown in Figure 13, Figure 3 and Figure 6 (i.e. 16X8, 16X32), Figure 5, Page 7, paragraph 0109-0111, Page 4, paragraph 0069, 0075, Page 3, paragraph 0049, 0050, Figure 16A-16C, Page 9, paragraph 0145, 0147, 0149) , and
reconstructing the current image block based on the four rectangular subblocks (Page 5, paragraph 0084-0086, Figure 1, Figure 5, 595, Figure 6, Page 7, paragraph 0109-0111, Page 4, paragraph 0069, 0075, Page 3, paragraph 0049, 0050, Figure 16A-16C, Page 9, paragraph 0145, 0147, 0149, Figure 13).
Alshina discloses that N is an integer which would include N = 4. However, the examiner is providing an explicitly teach for partitioning H/4 to teach the limitation “wherein a size of each of the four rectangular subblocks is expressed as 16 x H/4.”
Oguz discloses partitioning the current image block into four rectangular subblocks when the partition direction is the horizontal direction, wherein a size of the current image block is expressed as 16 x H, with H representing a height of the current image block and 16 is a width of the current image block, wherein H is not equal to 16, and wherein a size of each of the four rectangular subblocks is expressed as 16 x H/4 (Page 3, paragraph 0029, 16X8 block with partitions of 16X2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify Alshina to include the missing limitation as taught by Oguz in order to provide high efficiency encoding (Page 1, paragraph 0005) as disclosed by Oguz.
Regarding Claim 2, Alshina discloses an encoding method, comprising:
determining that a current image block is required to be partitioned (Figure 5, Figure 6, Page 7, paragraph 0113, Page 4, paragraph 0069, 0075, Page 3, paragraph 0049, 0050, Figure 16A-16C, Page 9, paragraph 0145, 0147, 0149, Figure 13);
in response to determine that the current image block being required to be partitioned, determining that the current image block is required to be partitioned in a horizontal direction (Figure 5, Figure 6, Page 7, paragraph 0113, Page 4, paragraph 0069, 0075, Page 3, paragraph 0049, 0050, Figure 16A-16C, Page 9, paragraph 0145, 0147, 0149, Figure 13);
in response to the current image block being required to be partitioned in the horizontal direction, partitioning the current image block into four rectangular subblocks, wherein a size of the current image block is expressed as 16 × H, with 16 representing a width of the current image block and H is a height of the current image block, wherein H is not equal to 16, and wherein a size of each of the four rectangular subblocks is expressed as 16 x H/n (Page 3, paragraph 0058 – dividing horizontally [or vertically] at a ratio of 1:n, n:1, blocks shown in Figure 13, Figure 3 and Figure 6 (i.e. 16X8, 16X32), Figure 5, Page 7, paragraph 0109-0111, Page 4, paragraph 0069, 0075, Page 3, paragraph 0049, 0050, Figure 16A-16C, Page 9, paragraph 0145, 0147, 0149); and
writing information into a bitstream, wherein the information specifies whether the current image block is required to be partitioned and whether the current image block is required to be partitioned in the horizontal direction or the vertical direction (Figure 6, Page 3, paragraph 0058 –in Figure 13, Figure 3, Figure 5, Page 7, paragraph 0109-0111, Page 4, paragraph 0069, 0075, Page 3, paragraph 0049, 0050, Figure 16A-16C, Page 9, paragraph 0145, 0147, 0149).
Alshina discloses that N is an integer which would include N = 4. However, the examiner is providing an explicitly teach for partitioning H/4 to teach the limitation “wherein a size of each of the four rectangular subblocks is expressed as 16 x H/4.”
Oguz discloses partitioning the current image block into four rectangular subblocks when the partition direction is the horizontal direction, wherein a size of the current image block is expressed as 16 x H, with H representing a height of the current image block and 16 is a width of the current image block, wherein H is not equal to 16, and wherein a size of each of the four rectangular subblocks is expressed as 16 x H/4 (Page 3, paragraph 0029, 16X8 block with partitions of 16X2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify Alshina to include the missing limitation as taught by Oguz in order to provide high efficiency encoding (Page 1, paragraph 0005) as disclosed by Oguz.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alshina et al (US 2011/0135000 and hereafter referred to as “Alshina”) in view of Cao et al (“CE6.b1 Report on Short Distance Intra Prediction Method,” Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VС) of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, March 2011 and hereafter referred to as “Cao”).
It is noted that the foreign priority has not been perfected, to show support for the language.
Regarding Claim 1, Alshina discloses a decoding method, comprising:
receiving a bitstream (Figure 5, Figure 2 );
parsing the bitstream to determine that current image block is required to be partitioned (Figure 5, Figure 6, Page 7, paragraph 0113, Page 4, paragraph 0069, 0075, Page 3, paragraph 0049, 0050, Figure 16A-16C, Page 9, paragraph 0145, 0147, 0149, Figure 13);
in response to determine that the current image block is required to be partitioned, parsing the bitstream to determine a partition direction, wherein the partition direction is the horizontal direction (Page 3, paragraph 0058 – dividing horizontally [or vertically] at a ratio of 1:n, n:1, blocks shown in Figure 13, Figure 3 and Figure 6, Figure 5, Page 7, paragraph 0109-0111, Page 4, paragraph 0069, 0075, Page 3, paragraph 0049, 0050, Figure 16A-16C, Page 9, paragraph 0145, 0147, 0149);
partitioning the current image block into four rectangular subblocks, wherein a size of the current image block is expressed as 16 x H, with H representing a height of the current image block and 16 is a width of the current image block, wherein H is not equal to 16, wherein a size of each of the four rectangular subblocks is expressed as 16 x H/n (Page 3, paragraph 0058 – dividing horizontally [or vertically] at a ratio of 1:n, n:1, blocks shown in Figure 13, Figure 3 and Figure 6 (i.e. 16X8, 16X32), Figure 5, Page 7, paragraph 0109-0111, Page 4, paragraph 0069, 0075, Page 3, paragraph 0049, 0050, Figure 16A-16C, Page 9, paragraph 0145, 0147, 0149) , and
reconstructing the current image block based on the four rectangular subblocks (Page 5, paragraph 0084-0086, Figure 1, Figure 5, 595, Figure 6, Page 7, paragraph 0109-0111, Page 4, paragraph 0069, 0075, Page 3, paragraph 0049, 0050, Figure 16A-16C, Page 9, paragraph 0145, 0147, 0149, Figure 13).
Alshina discloses that N is an integer which would include N = 4. However, the examiner is providing an explicitly teach for partitioning H/4 to teach the limitation “wherein a size of each of the four rectangular subblocks is expressed as 16 x H/4.”
Cao discloses partitioning the current image block into four rectangular subblocks when the partition direction is the horizontal direction, wherein a size of the current image block is expressed as 16 x H, with H representing a height of the current image block and 16 is a width of the current image block, wherein H is not equal to 16, and wherein a size of each of the four rectangular subblocks is expressed as 16 x H/4 (Page 1, §2.1, Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify Alshina to include the missing limitation as taught by Cao in order to reduce the distance, reduce the energy and no increase for decoding (Abstract) as disclosed by Cao.
Regarding Claim 2, Alshina discloses an encoding method, comprising:
determining that a current image block is required to be partitioned (Figure 5, Figure 6, Page 7, paragraph 0113, Page 4, paragraph 0069, 0075, Page 3, paragraph 0049, 0050, Figure 16A-16C, Page 9, paragraph 0145, 0147, 0149, Figure 13);
in response to determine that the current image block being required to be partitioned, determining that the current image block is required to be partitioned in a horizontal direction (Figure 5, Figure 6, Page 7, paragraph 0113, Page 4, paragraph 0069, 0075, Page 3, paragraph 0049, 0050, Figure 16A-16C, Page 9, paragraph 0145, 0147, 0149, Figure 13);
in response to the current image block being required to be partitioned in the horizontal direction, partitioning the current image block into four rectangular subblocks, wherein a size of the current image block is expressed as 16 × H, with 16 representing a width of the current image block and H is a height of the current image block, wherein H is not equal to 16, and wherein a size of each of the four rectangular subblocks is expressed as 16 x H/n (Page 3, paragraph 0058 – dividing horizontally [or vertically] at a ratio of 1:n, n:1, blocks shown in Figure 13, Figure 3 and Figure 6 (i.e. 16X8, 16X32), Figure 5, Page 7, paragraph 0109-0111, Page 4, paragraph 0069, 0075, Page 3, paragraph 0049, 0050, Figure 16A-16C, Page 9, paragraph 0145, 0147, 0149); and
writing information into a bitstream, wherein the information specifies whether the current image block is required to be partitioned and whether the current image block is required to be partitioned in the horizontal direction or the vertical direction (Figure 6, Page 3, paragraph 0058 –in Figure 13, Figure 3, Figure 5, Page 7, paragraph 0109-0111, Page 4, paragraph 0069, 0075, Page 3, paragraph 0049, 0050, Figure 16A-16C, Page 9, paragraph 0145, 0147, 0149).
Alshina discloses that N is an integer which would include N = 4. However, the examiner is providing an explicitly teach for partitioning H/4 to teach the limitation “wherein a size of each of the four rectangular subblocks is expressed as 16 x H/4.”
Cao discloses partitioning the current image block into four rectangular subblocks when the partition direction is the horizontal direction, wherein a size of the current image block is expressed as 16 x H, with H representing a height of the current image block and 16 is a width of the current image block, wherein H is not equal to 16, and wherein a size of each of the four rectangular subblocks is expressed as 16 x H/4 (Page 1, §2.1, Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify Alshina to include the missing limitation as taught by Cao in order to reduce the distance, reduce the energy and no increase for decoding (Abstract) as disclosed by Cao.
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 FARZANA HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5943. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 5:00 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, Christopher 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.
/FARZANA HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
January 7, 2026