DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is a response to an amendment filed on 03/20/2026, in which claims 1-15 are pending and ready for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/31/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 16/968,942, filed on 08/11/2020.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have been considered but are not persuasive.
In regards to the Double Patenting rejection of claims 1, 6, and 7 applicant argues that the rejection should be withdrawn in light of the newly submitted amended claims.
However, examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the table bellow the amendments would not overcome the Double Patenting rejection.
Furthermore, applicants argues that Moon does not disclose, teach or suggest the newly added limitation of “wherein the number of the sub-blocks is greater than 2 when the height of the current coding block is greater than a specific maximum height value and the width of the current coding block is greater than a specific maximum width value”.
However, examiner respectfully disagrees. The argued limitation has been disclosed by paragraph 198 of Moon and shown in the rejection bellow.
Claims 1-15 remain rejected since the system disclosed by the applicant is taught by the prior arts.
Claim interpretation
Claim 7’s recitation of a “computer readable medium for storing a bitstream generated by an image encoding method…” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the method is the operations to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the computer readable medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the encoding steps). The structure includes the encoder, the video block, and other information manipulated by the operation.
To be given patentable weight, the computer readable medium (a storage medium) and the bitstream (i.e. descriptive material) must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the descriptive material performs some function with respect to the storage medium to which it is associated. See MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer readable medium” merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists”. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 7 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure of the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,812,033. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 6, and 7 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1, 9, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,812,033. Therefore, claim 1, 6, and 7 of the instant application are an obvious variation of claims 1, 9, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,812,033. Please note that the newly added limitation of “wherein the number of the sub-blocks is greater than 2 when the height of the current coding block is greater than a specific maximum height value and the width of the current coding block is greater than a specific maximum width value.”
Instant # 19/918,304
Patent No. 11,812,033
A method of decoding an image, comprising:
A method of decoding an image, comprising:
obtaining, from a bitstream, first split information indicating whether to split a current coding block into a plurality of sub-blocks;
obtaining, from the bitstream, second split information indicating a split direction of the current coding block when the first split information indicates that the current coding block is split into the plurality of the sub-blocks, wherein the split direction is determined as one of a horizontal direction or a vertical direction;
determining, based on the first split information and the second split information, a split type of the current coding block;
splitting, based on the split type and a number of the plurality of the sub-blocks, the current coding block into the plurality of the sub-blocks;
deriving an intra prediction mode of a current coding block; and
deriving an intra prediction mode of the current coding block; and
performing intra prediction on the current coding block based on the intra prediction mode of the current coding block,
performing intra prediction on each of the sub-blocks belonging to the current coding block based on the intra prediction mode of the current coding block,
wherein the current coding block is split into a plurality of sub-blocks based on information signaled from a bitstream,
See the limitations above: splitting, based on the split type and a number of the plurality of the sub-blocks, the current coding block into the plurality of the sub-blocks;
wherein the intra prediction is sequentially performed on each of the plurality of sub-blocks in a predetermined coding order, and
wherein the intra prediction is sequentially performed on the each of the sub-blocks in a predetermined coding order by using the intra prediction mode of the current coding block,
wherein a number of the plurality of sub-blocks is variably determined based on a width and a height of the current coding block, and
wherein the number of the plurality of the sub-blocks is variably derived by a decoding apparatus using a width and a height of the current coding block,
wherein the number of the plurality of the sub-blocks is determined as one of a plurality of candidate numbers pre-defined at the decoding apparatus,
wherein the candidate numbers include at least one of 2, 4, 8 or 16,
wherein, in response to a case where one of the width or the height of the current coding block is equal to 4 and the other one of the width or the height of the current coding block is equal to 8, the number of the plurality of the sub-blocks is determined as 2,
wherein the number of the sub-blocks is greater than 2 when the height of the current coding block is greater than a specific maximum height value and the width of the current coding block is greater than a specific maximum width value.
wherein, in response to a case where both the width and the height of the current coding block are greater than or equal to 8, the number of the plurality of the sub-blocks is determined as 4,
wherein deriving the intra prediction mode comprises,
generating a most probable mode (MPM) list of the current coding block using intra prediction modes of neighboring blocks of the current coding block; and
determining the intra prediction mode of the current coding block from the MPM list, wherein the neighboring blocks include a left block and a top block of the current coding block, and
wherein a position of the left block is determined based on the height of the current coding block and a position of the top block is determined based on the width of the current coding block.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moon (US 2019/0141319 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Moon discloses: A method of decoding an image (see paragraph 107), comprising:
deriving an intra prediction mode of a current coding block (see Moon, paragraph 87); and
performing intra prediction on the current coding block based on the intra prediction mode of the current coding block (see Moon, paragraph 116),
wherein the current coding block is split into a plurality of sub-blocks based on information signaled from a bitstream (see Moon, paragraph 182),
wherein the intra prediction is sequentially performed on each of the plurality of sub-blocks in a predetermined coding order (see Moon, Fig. 9-11 and paragraph 149), and
wherein a number of the plurality of sub-blocks is variably determined based on a width and a height of the current coding block (see paragraph 64 and Fig. 11), and
wherein the number of the sub-blocks is greater than 2 when the height of the current coding block is greater than a specific maximum height value and the width of the current coding block is greater than a specific maximum width value (see paragraph 189, minimum size of coding block is 4x4, also see paragraph 127, dividing the block into four blocks).
Regarding claim 2, Moon discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein, in response to a case where one of the width or the height of the current coding block is equal to 4 and the other one of the width or the height of the current coding block is equal to 8, the number of the plurality of sub-blocks is determined as N (see Moon, paragraph 189, minimum size of coding block is 4x4, also see paragraph 125, dividing the block into two blocks),
wherein, in response to a case where both the width and the height of the current coding block are greater than or equal to 8, the number of the plurality of the sub-blocks is determined as M (see Moon, paragraph 189, minimum size of coding block is 4x4, also see paragraph 127, dividing the block into four blocks), and
wherein N is an integer less than M (see Moon, paragraph 189).
Regarding claim 3, Moon discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein deriving the intra prediction mode comprises: generating a most probable mode (MPM) list of the current coding block based on intra prediction modes of neighboring blocks of the current coding block (see Moon, paragraph 8 and 217); and
determining the intra prediction mode of the current coding block from the MPM list (see Moon, Fig. 18 and paragraph 218),
wherein the neighboring blocks include a left neighboring block and a top neighboring block (see Moon, Fig. 21), and
wherein a position of the left neighboring block is determined based on the height of the current coding block and a position of the top neighboring block is determined based on the width of the current coding block (see Moon, Fig. 21, and paragraph 227 and 229).
Regarding claim 4, Moon discloses: The method of claim 3, wherein the MPM list includes 5 MPMs (see Moon, paragraph 234 and Fig. 21).
Regarding claim 5, Moon discloses: The method of claim 3, wherein when there are a plurality of left blocks adjacent to the current coding block, a bottom-most block among the plurality of left blocks is determined as the left neighboring block (see Moon, paragraph Fig. 21 and 228, bottom left neighboring block), and
wherein when there is a plurality of top blocks adjacent to the current coding block, a right-most block among the plurality of top blocks is determined as the top neighboring block (see Moon, paragraph Fig. 21 and 228, top right neighboring block).
Regarding claims 6-11, claims 6-11 are drawn to a method having limitations similar to the method claimed in claims 1-5 treated in the above rejections. Therefore, method claims 6-11 correspond to method claims 1-5 and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Regarding claims 7 and 12-15, claims 7 and 12-15 are drawn to a computer readable storage medium having limitations similar to the method claimed in claims 1-5 treated in the above rejections. Therefore, computer readable storage medium claims 7 and 12-15 correspond to method claims 1-5 and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above. Furthermore, Moon discloses: A non-transitory computer readable medium for storing a bitstream generated by an image encoding method (see Moon, Fig. 2, memory 245, also see paragraph 122 and 304).
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 MARYAM A NASRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7158. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-8:00 M-T.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/MARYAM A NASRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights