LETAILED 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 .
Acknowledgment
On 11/6/2025, the Applicant’s Representative Amichai Kotev (# 57668) indicated that he will provide an Applicant’s response to the Examiner’s proposed amendment by 11/12/2025. Please see the interview summary on 11/6/2025 for details. However, no response has been received. Examiner waited for another week, but there was no response. As a reason, the Office action will be sent.
Objections
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are objected. The claim limitation “the fixed threshold which is independent from the maximum size” should be read “the fixed threshold which is independent from the maximum size selectable for the transform units”. An appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “cu_skip_flag” must be shown or the feature(s) must be canceled from the claims 1-7. No new matter should be entered.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are a decoding unit, a first determining unit, a performing unit, and a second determining unit in claim 6. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph because of a new matter. Claims 1, 6, and 7 recite “the fixed threshold which is independent from the maximum size and is not signalled in the bitstream”. It is noted that the specification teaches the skip flag is encoded or decoded when a coding block size is compared to a predetermined threshold, such as, “the skip flag is only coded if the CU size is less than a predetermined threshold, as described with reference to step 1120 of Fig. 11” [line 18-19, page 46; Fig. 11]; “the skip flag is only decoded if the CU size is less than a predetermined threshold, for example if neither side length exceeds 64 samples. Otherwise, the CU is determined to be a 'large CU' and the skip mode is inferred as being used.” [line 54, page 29-31]. In addition, the specification only uses the word “independent” three times in [line 25, page 35; line 12, page 50; line 17-18, page 53], as well as in the specification of the parent application AU2018217336. However, none of these occasions teaches that “the fixed threshold which is independent from the maximum size”. Moreover, the specification also describes that, “In yet another arrangement of the method 1100, the restriction on side length of the CU for which skip mode is inferred (step 1120 returns 'Large') to be used applies to any CU with either side length being greater than 64 results in the set of CUs for which skip inference takes place being: 128x128, 64x128, 128x64, 128x32, 32x128, 64x64. Again, step 1222 of Fig. 12 and step 1322 of Fig. 13 are accordingly varied. The threshold (or boundary) between the 'large' and 'regular' set may be dependent upon the 'operating point' (e.g., the desired bitrate of the bitstream) of the system 100. Instead of having a fixed boundary, the boundary can be signalled in the bitstream 115 as a threshold, allowing the video encoder 115 to select a 15 boundary for the system 100. The boundary can be signalled as a log2 of the side length and the requirement that 'either' or 'both' sides of the CU must match the signalled boundary for the CU to be deemed in the 'Large' set can also be signalled” [line 47, page 7-17; Figs 12-13]. Since claim limitations “the fixed threshold which is independent from the maximum size and is not signalled in the bitstream” are contradictory with the descriptions in the specification of this application as well as the descriptions in the specification of the parent application AU 2018217336 [pages 45-46, 54], hence they are new matters. The new matters are required to be canceled from the claims (Please see MPEP 608.04).
Claims 1-7 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 1, 6, and 7 recite “the fixed threshold which is independent from the maximum size and is not signalled in the bitstream”. When the fixed threshold is not signalled in the bitstream, it is not clear neither from the specification nor from the claims that how the decoder may know “the fixed threshold” value so the decoder can use it during the decoding process. Even though the decoder may be able to infer a value of “the fixed threshold” from a fixed threshold of another coding block, that fixed threshold must be signalled to the decoder in advance. In a case that none of these fixed thresholds was signalled as it is claimed, the decoder does not have any value of “the fixed threshold” to be used for comparisons in the second test. Therefore, claims 1, 6, 7, and their dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claims 1-7 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 1, 6, and 7 recite “in a case where a first constraint is applied, determining transform units in the coding unit in a manner such that a maximum size selectable for the transform units as a size of a luma component is 32 samples even if at least one side of the coding unit is 128 samples”. However, it is not clear to readers from the claim language that what is the first constraint. Therefore, claims 1, 6, 7, and their dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. In this Office action, based on a BRI, the first constraint is interpreted an option or a condition.
Claims 1-7 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 1, 6, and 7 recite “in a case where a second constraint is applied, determining the transform units in the coding unit in a manner such that the maximum size selectable for the transform units as the size of the luma component is 64 samples even if at least one side of the coding unit is 128 samples; and decoding the coding unit by using the determined transform units”. However, it is not clear to readers from the claim language that what is the second constraint. Therefore, claims 1, 6, 7, and their dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. In this Office action, based on a BRI, the second constraint is interpreted as an option or a condition.
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 of this title, 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.
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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0075328 A1), (“Huang”), in view of Zhou et al. (US Patent 10,136,132 B2), (“Zhou”).
Regarding claim 1, Huang meets the claim limitations as follow.
An image decoding method for decoding (A method and apparatus for processing video data in an encoding system and a decoding system) [para. 0007; Fig. 8] a coding unit (coding unit) (paras. [0008-0009, 0012-0015, 0033-0035]; Figs. 1-5) from a bitstream (The current CTU is encoded to form a video bitstream) (paras. [0007-0009, 0011], 0013, 0034-0035, 0038-0043]; Fig. 8] according to a predetermined manner ((suitable manner) [para. 0039]; (CTUs within a slice are processed according to a raster scan order) [para. 0003]), the method comprising: decoding ((decoding) [para. 0008; Fig. 8]; (parse) [para. 0008; Fig. 8]), from the bitstream, information for determining a coding unit in a coding tree unit (parse one or more CTU-level syntaxes and residues for the current CTU from the video bitstream) [para. 0008; Fig. 8], wherein at least one side of the coding unit is capable of being 128 samples in the predetermined manner (a CTU with a size of 128x128) (paras. [0032, 0009]); in a case where a first constraint is applied ((various local characteristics using a quadtree partition process. For a 2Nx2N CTU, it can be a single CU or can be split into four smaller blocks of equal sizes (i.e., NxN)) (paras. [0004], [0013], [0016], [0034], [0040]; Fig. 5) – Note: The first constrain can be one of the splitting options), determining transform units in the coding unit in a manner such that a maximum size selectable for the transform units (determine whether the current CTU or the current CU is required further splitting corresponds to a maximum supported transform unit (TU) size) (paras. [0009], [0016]; [0040]; Abstract) as a size of a luma component is 32 samples (The size of a luma CTB is chosen from 16x16, 32x32, or 64x64) [para. 0003] even if at least one side of the coding unit is 128 samples (the threshold for M or N is 128) [para. 0034]; in a case where a second constraint is applied (various local characteristics using a quadtree partition process. For a 2Nx2N CTU, it can be a single CU or can be split into four smaller blocks of equal sizes (i.e., NxN)) (paras. [0004], [0013], [0016], [0034], [0040]; Fig. 5) – Note: The second constrain can be another splitting option), determining the transform units in the coding unit in a manner such that the maximum size selectable for the transform units (determine whether the current CTU or the current CU is required further splitting corresponds to a maximum supported transform unit (TU) size) (paras. [0009], [0016]; [0040]; Abstract) as the size of the luma component is 64 samples (The size of a luma CTB is chosen from 16x16, 32x32, or 64x64, with the larger sizes typically enabling better compression rate for simple or smooth texture areas) [para. 0003] even if at least one side of the coding unit is 128 samples (the threshold for M or N is 128) [para. 0034]; and decoding the coding unit (decoding the current CTU according to the one or more
CTU-level syntaxes parsed from the video bitstream) (claim 14; Fig. 5) by using the determined transform units (The current CTU is processed according to CTU-level syntaxes signaled in a video bitstream. The encoder or decoder encodes or decodes the current CTU. The threshold corresponds to a maximum supported transform unit (TU) size for the encoder or decoder) (Abstract; paras. [0009], [0016]; [0040]; Fig. 5), wherein, the method further comprises (a method for processing video data in a decoding system) [para. 0007; Fig. 8]: performing first and second tests (The decision whether to code a picture area using Inter-picture (temporal) prediction or Intra-picture (spatial) prediction is made at the CU level) (paras. [0004], [0032] , [0047, [0049]; Fig. 7) to determine whether a cu_skip_flag is to be decoded, the first test (The decision whether to code a picture area using Inter-picture (temporal) prediction or Intra-picture (spatial) prediction is made at the CU level) (paras. [0004], [0032] , [0047, [0049]; Fig. 7) including determining whether a current slice type is an intra slice (Each block in the current CTU or the current CU may be predicted by Intra Prediction 710 or Motion Prediction 712) (paras. [0047], [0004], [0032]; Fig. 7), and
the second test including comparison between a fixed threshold and at least one of a width and a height of the coding unit (A size of the current CTU or the current CU is determined and compared with a threshold, and if the size, width, or height of the current CTU or the current CU is greater than the threshold) (paras. [0008], [0015], [0047]); and determining that the cu_skip_flag is to be decoded in a case where the current slice type is not the intra slice (code a picture area using Inter-picture) (paras. [0004], [0032] , [0047, [0049]; Fig. 7), a predetermined prediction mode is enabled (The block processed by Motion Prediction 712 selects to be encoded in Inter mode by Inter Prediction 7122 or to be encoded in Merge mode by Merge prediction 7124) [para. 0047], and the width and the height of the coding unit are equal to or less than the fixed threshold (restricting the block size for transform or inverse transform processing to be less than or equal to the threshold) (paras. [0041], [0038], [0040]) which is independent from the maximum size and is not signalled in the bitstream ((Encoders and decoder infer to split the large CTUs or CUs so bits required for signaling the split flags are saved and thus achieves better coding efficiency) [para. 0041]; (The encoder may skip signaling a TU split flag in a video bitstream to decoders) [para. 0034] – Note: Huang teaches that based on how the CTU/CU size compared to a predetermined threshold, the encoder and decoder can infer coding parameter and the encoder can skip signaling it in the bitstream in order improve coding efficiency).
Huang does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations (Emphasis added).
determine whether a cu_skip_flag is to be decoded.
determining that the cu_skip_flag is to be decoded in a case where the current slice type is not the intra slice, a predetermined prediction mode is enabled, and the width and the height of the coding unit are equal to or less than the fixed threshold which is independent from the maximum size and is not signalled in the bitstream.
However, in the same field of endeavor Zhou further discloses the claim limitations and the deficient claim limitations as follows:
perform first and second tests to determine whether a cu_skip_flag is to be decoded ((evaluation of whether a particular picture portion should be encoded using a "skip" mode) ([col. 3, line 45-46]; (specifying whether and how certain encoding operations (e.g., skip-mode encoding) should be performed) ([col. 3, line 40-42],
determine whether a cu_skip_flag is to be decoded (evaluating (822) whether the
current block is to be encoded in a skip mode) ([col. 21, line 56-57]; Boxes 822 in Fig. 8).
the cu_skip_flag is to be decoded in a case where the current slice type is not the intra slice (the series of skip block detection procedures comprises: a first skip-block detection procedure (920) implemented prior to performing any motion estimation for the respective block; and a second skip-block detection procedure (922) implemented after performing motion estimation for the respective block) ([col. 22, line 50-55]; Boxes 920, 922 in Fig. 9; Note: Zhou clearly discloses that the skip operation is performed during motion estimation for the inter prediction, which is not in an intra slice).
the fixed threshold which is independent from the maximum size (the adaptively adjusted thresholds are unique and separately adaptable for each block location of a
picture) [col. 21, line 1-3] – Note: Zhou teaches that the thresholds in his invention are adaptively adjusted thresholds and adaptable for each block location. As a result, the threshold of Zhou are not dependent on the maximum size).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Huang with Zhou to program the system to implement of Zhou’s method.
Therefore, the combination of Huang with Zhou will enable the system to improve coding efficiency [Zhou: Abstract].
Regarding claim 2, Huang meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 1. Huang further meets the claim limitations as follow.
wherein at least one side of the coding unit is equal to 128 samples ((a CTU with a size of 128x128) (paras. [0032, 0009]; (the threshold for M or N is 128) [para. 0034]).
Regarding claim 3, Huang meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 1. Huang further meets the claim limitations as follow.
wherein a ternary split is capable of being used for determining the coding unit in the coding tree unit (the quadtree split flag for the current CTU or CU is inferred to be 1 (i.e. split) when the size, width, or height is greater than the threshold and when a quadtree split is use for partitioning the current CTU or CU into four smaller blocks) [para. 0040]).
Regarding claim 4, Huang meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 1. Huang further meets the claim limitations as follow.
wherein a shape of each of the transform units ((the maximum supported TU size is 128x128) [para. 0040] – Note: It is clear from Huang ‘s description that the TU’s shape is a square) is different to a shape of the coding unit ((The maximum supported TU
size may be signaled in a sequence level, a picture level, or a slice level in the video bitstream to notify a decoder side. In some embodiments, the current CTU or the current CU is split using quadtree split or binary tree split if the size, width, or height of the current CTU or the current CU is greater than the threshold. In an embodiment, when the current CTU or the current CU is split using binary tree split, the current CTU or the current CU is split by a vertical split if the width or the size of the current CTU or the current CU is greater than the threshold; or the current CTU or the current CU is split by a horizontal split if the height or the size of the current CTU or the current CU is greater than the threshold) [para. 0009; Figs 1, 2A] – Note: It is clear from Huang’s description that when the TU or CTU is split using binary tree split, a square block of TU will be divided into 2 rectangular blocks of CUs. Hence the shape of the TU, which is square, is different from the shape of the CU, which is a rectangular).
Regarding claim 5, Huang meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 1. Huang further meets the claim limitations as follow.
wherein an aspect ratio of each of the transform units ((the maximum supported TU size is 128x128) [para. 0040] – Note: In image and video coding, the aspect ratio is defined as a ratio between the width and height. In this case, the TU has the aspect ratio of 128/128 = 1) is different to an aspect ratio of the coding unit (In an embodiment, when the current CTU or the current CU is split using binary tree split, the current CTU or the current CU is split by a vertical split if the width or the size of the current CTU or the current CU is greater than the threshold; or the current CTU or the current CU is split by a horizontal split if the height or the size of the current CTU or the current CU is greater than the threshold) [para. 0009; Figs 1, 2A] – Note: From Huang’s description, the aspect ratio of the CU should be 128/64 = 2, or 64/128 = ½. Both of CU’s aspect ratios are different from the TU’s aspect ratio).
Regarding claim 6, Huang meets the claim limitations as follow.
An image decoding apparatus (A method and apparatus for processing video data in an encoding system and a decoding system) [para. 0007; Fig. 8] for decoding (A method and apparatus for processing video data in an encoding system and a decoding system) [para. 0007; Fig. 8] a coding unit (coding unit) (paras. [0008-0009, 0012-0015, 0033-0035]; Figs. 1-5) from a bitstream (The current CTU is encoded to form a video bitstream) (paras. [0007-0009, 0011], 0013, 0034-0035, 0038-0043]; Fig. 8] according to a predetermined manner ((suitable manner) [para. 0039]; (CTUs within a slice are processed according to a raster scan order) [para. 0003]), the apparatus comprising: a decoding unit (one or more processors) [para. 0050; Figs. 7-8] configured to decode ((decoding) [para. 0008; Fig. 8]; (parse) [para. 0008; Fig. 8]), from the bitstream, information for determining a coding unit in a coding tree unit (parse one or more CTU-level syntaxes and residues for the current CTU from the video bitstream) [para. 0008; Fig. 8], wherein at least one side of the coding unit is capable of being 128 samples in the predetermined manner (a CTU with a size of 128x128) (paras. [0032, 0009]); a first determining unit configured to determine (one or more processors configured to) [para. 0050; Figs. 7-8] in a case where a first constraint is applied ((various local characteristics using a quadtree partition process. For a 2Nx2N CTU, it can be a single CU or can be split into four smaller blocks of equal sizes (i.e., NxN)) (paras. [0004], [0013], [0016], [0034], [0040]; Fig. 5) – Note: The first constrain can be one of the splitting options), transform units in the coding unit in a manner such that a maximum size selectable for the transform units (determine whether the current CTU or the current CU is required further splitting corresponds to a maximum supported transform unit (TU) size) (paras. [0009], [0016]; [0040]; Abstract) as a size of a luma component is 32 samples (The size of a luma CTB is chosen from 16x16, 32x32, or 64x64) [para. 0003] even if at least one side of the coding unit is 128 samples (the threshold for M or N is 128) [para. 0034]; and wherein, in a case where a second constraint is applied (various local characteristics using a quadtree partition process. For a 2Nx2N CTU, it can be a single CU or can be split into four smaller blocks of equal sizes (i.e., NxN)) (paras. [0004], [0013], [0016], [0034], [0040]; Fig. 5) – Note: The second constrain can be another splitting option), the first determining unit configured to determine (one or more processors configured to) [para. 0050; Figs. 7-8] the transform units in the coding unit in a manner such that the maximum size selectable for the transform units (determine whether the current CTU or the current CU is required further splitting corresponds to a maximum supported transform unit (TU) size) (paras. [0009], [0016]; [0040]; Abstract) as the size of the luma component is 64 samples (The size of a luma CTB is chosen from 16x16, 32x32, or 64x64, with the larger sizes typically enabling better compression rate for simple or smooth texture areas) [para. 0003] even if at least one side of the coding unit is 128 samples (the threshold for M or N is 128) [para. 0034]; and wherein the decoding unit (one or more processors) [para. 0050; Figs. 7-8] configured to decode the coding unit (decoding the current CTU according to the one or more CTU-level syntaxes parsed from the video bitstream) (claim 14; Fig. 5) by using the determined transform units (The current CTU is processed according to CTU-level syntaxes signaled in a video bitstream. The encoder or decoder encodes or decodes the current CTU. The threshold corresponds to a maximum supported transform unit (TU) size for the encoder or decoder) (Abstract; paras. [0009], [0016]; [0040]; Fig. 5), wherein, the apparatus further comprises (an apparatus for processing video data in a decoding system) [para. 0007; Fig. 8]: a performing unit (one or more processors) [para. 0050; Figs. 7-8] configured to perform first and second tests (The decision whether to code a picture area using Inter-picture (temporal) prediction or Intra-picture (spatial) prediction is made at the CU level) (paras. [0004], [0032] , [0047, [0049]; Fig. 7) to determine whether a cu_skip_flag is to be decoded, the first test (The decision whether to code a picture area using Inter-picture (temporal) prediction or Intra-picture (spatial) prediction is made at the CU level) (paras. [0004], [0032] , [0047, [0049]; Fig. 7) including determining whether a current slice type is an intra slice (Each block in the current CTU or the current CU may be predicted by Intra Prediction 710 or Motion Prediction 712) (paras. [0047], [0004], [0032]; Fig. 7), and
the second test including comparison between a fixed threshold and at least one of a width and a height of the coding unit (A size of the current CTU or the current CU is determined and compared with a threshold, and if the size, width, or height of the current CTU or the current CU is greater than the threshold) (paras. [0008], [0015], [0047]); and a second determining unit configured to determine (one or more processors configured to) [para. 0050; Figs. 7-8] that the cu_skip_flag is to be decoded in a case where the current slice type is not the intra slice (code a picture area using Inter-picture) (paras. [0004], [0032] , [0047, [0049]; Fig. 7), a predetermined prediction mode is enabled (The block processed by Motion Prediction 712 selects to be encoded in Inter mode by Inter Prediction 7122 or to be encoded in Merge mode by Merge prediction 7124) [para. 0047], and the width and the height of the coding unit are equal to or less than the fixed threshold (restricting the block size for transform or inverse transform processing to be less than or equal to the threshold) (paras. [0041], [0038], [0040]) which is independent from the maximum size and is not signalled in the bitstream ((Encoders and decoder infer to split the large CTUs or CUs so bits required for signaling the split flags are saved and thus achieves better coding efficiency) [para. 0041]; (The encoder may skip signaling a TU split flag in a video bitstream to decoders) [para. 0034] – Note: Huang teaches that based on how the CTU/CU size compared to a predetermined threshold, the encoder and decoder can infer coding parameter and the encoder can skip signaling it in the bitstream in order improve coding efficiency).
Huang does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations (Emphasis added).
determine whether a cu_skip_flag is to be decoded.
determining that the cu_skip_flag is to be decoded in a case where the current slice type is not the intra slice, a predetermined prediction mode is enabled, and the width and the height of the coding unit are equal to or less than the fixed threshold which is independent from the maximum size and is not signalled in the bitstream.
However, in the same field of endeavor Zhou further discloses the claim limitations and the deficient claim limitations as follows:
perform first and second tests to determine whether a cu_skip_flag is to be decoded ((evaluation of whether a particular picture portion should be encoded using a "skip" mode) ([col. 3, line 45-46]; (specifying whether and how certain encoding operations (e.g., skip-mode encoding) should be performed) ([col. 3, line 40-42],determine whether a cu_skip_flag is to be decoded (evaluating (822) whether the
current block is to be encoded in a skip mode) ([col. 21, line 56-57]; Boxes 822 in Fig. 8).
the cu_skip_flag is to be decoded in a case where the current slice type is not the intra slice (the series of skip block detection procedures comprises: a first skip-block detection procedure (920) implemented prior to performing any motion estimation for the respective block; and a second skip-block detection procedure (922) implemented after performing motion estimation for the respective block) ([col. 22, line 50-55]; Boxes 920, 922 in Fig. 9; Note: Zhou clearly discloses that the skip operation is performed during motion estimation for the inter prediction, which is not in an intra slice).
the fixed threshold which is independent from the maximum size (the adaptively adjusted thresholds are unique and separately adaptable for each block location of a
picture) [col. 21, line 1-3] – Note: Zhou teaches that the thresholds in his invention are adaptively adjusted thresholds and adaptable for each block location. As a result, the threshold of Zhou are not dependent on the maximum size).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Huang with Zhou to program the system to implement of Zhou’s method.
Therefore, the combination of Huang with Zhou will enable the system to improve coding efficiency [Zhou: Abstract].
Regarding claim 7, Huang meets the claim limitations as follow.
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute an image decoding method for decoding a coding unit from a bitstream according to a predetermined manner, the method comprising:decoding ((decoding) [para. 0008; Fig. 8]; (parse) [para. 0008; Fig. 8]), from the bitstream, information for determining a coding unit in a coding tree unit (parse one or more CTU-level syntaxes and residues for the current CTU from the video bitstream) [para. 0008; Fig. 8], wherein at least one side of the coding unit is capable of being 128 samples in the predetermined manner (a CTU with a size of 128x128) (paras. [0032, 0009]); in a case where a second constraint is applied (various local characteristics using a quadtree partition process. For a 2Nx2N CTU, it can be a single CU or can be split into four smaller blocks of equal sizes (i.e., NxN)) (paras. [0004], [0013], [0016], [0034], [0040]; Fig. 5) – Note: The second constrain can be another splitting option), determining the transform units in the coding unit in a manner such that the maximum size selectable for the transform units (determine whether the current CTU or the current CU is required further splitting corresponds to a maximum supported transform unit (TU) size) (paras. [0009], [0016]; [0040]; Abstract) as the size of the luma component is 64 samples (The size of a luma CTB is chosen from 16x16, 32x32, or 64x64, with the larger sizes typically enabling better compression rate for simple or smooth texture areas) [para. 0003] even if at least one side of the coding unit is 128 samples (the threshold for M or N is 128) [para. 0034]; and decoding the coding unit (decoding the current CTU according to the one or more
CTU-level syntaxes parsed from the video bitstream) (claim 14; Fig. 5) by using the determined transform units (The current CTU is processed according to CTU-level syntaxes signaled in a video bitstream. The encoder or decoder encodes or decodes the current CTU. The threshold corresponds to a maximum supported transform unit (TU) size for the encoder or decoder) (Abstract; paras. [0009], [0016]; [0040]; Fig. 5), wherein, the method further comprises (a method for processing video data in a decoding system) [para. 0007; Fig. 8]: performing first and second tests (The decision whether to code a picture area using Inter-picture (temporal) prediction or Intra-picture (spatial) prediction is made at the CU level) (paras. [0004], [0032] , [0047, [0049]; Fig. 7) to determine whether a cu_skip_flag is to be decoded, the first test including determining whether a current slice type is an intra slice (Each block in the current CTU or the current CU may be predicted by Intra Prediction 710 or Motion Prediction 712) (paras. [0047], [0004], [0032]; Fig. 7), and
the second test including comparison between a fixed threshold and at least one of a width and a height of the coding unit (A size of the current CTU or the current CU is determined and compared with a threshold, and if the size, width, or height of the current CTU or the current CU is greater than the threshold) (paras. [0008], [0015], [0047]); and determining that the cu_skip_flag is to be decoded in a case where the current slice type is not the intra slice (code a picture area using Inter-picture) (paras. [0004], [0032] , [0047, [0049]; Fig. 7), a predetermined prediction mode is enabled (The block processed by Motion Prediction 712 selects to be encoded in Inter mode by Inter Prediction 7122 or to be encoded in Merge mode by Merge prediction 7124) [para. 0047], and the width and the height of the coding unit are equal to or less than the fixed threshold (restricting the block size for transform or inverse transform processing to be less than or equal to the threshold) (paras. [0041], [0038], [0040]) which is independent from the maximum size and is not signalled in the bitstream ((Encoders and decoder infer to split the large CTUs or CUs so bits required for signaling the split flags are saved and thus achieves better coding efficiency) [para. 0041]; (The encoder may skip signaling a TU split flag in a video bitstream to decoders) [para. 0034] – Note: Huang teaches that based on how the CTU/CU size compared to a predetermined threshold, the encoder and decoder can infer coding parameter and the encoder can skip signaling it in the bitstream in order improve coding efficiency).
Huang does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations (Emphasis added).
determine whether a cu_skip_flag is to be decoded.
determining that the cu_skip_flag is to be decoded in a case where the current slice type is not the intra slice, a predetermined prediction mode is enabled, and the width and the height of the coding unit are equal to or less than the fixed threshold which is independent from the maximum size and is not signalled in the bitstream.
However, in the same field of endeavor Zhou further discloses the claim limitations and the deficient claim limitations as follows:
perform first and second tests to determine whether a cu_skip_flag is to be decoded ((evaluation of whether a particular picture portion should be encoded using a "skip" mode) ([col. 3, line 45-46]; (specifying whether and how certain encoding operations (e.g., skip-mode encoding) should be performed) ([col. 3, line 40-42],determine whether a cu_skip_flag is to be decoded (evaluating (822) whether the
current block is to be encoded in a skip mode) ([col. 21, line 56-57]; Boxes 822 in Fig. 8).
the cu_skip_flag is to be decoded in a case where the current slice type is not the intra slice (the series of skip block detection procedures comprises: a first skip-block detection procedure (920) implemented prior to performing any motion estimation for the respective block; and a second skip-block detection procedure (922) implemented after performing motion estimation for the respective block) ([col. 22, line 50-55]; Boxes 920, 922 in Fig. 9; Note: Zhou clearly discloses that the skip operation is performed during motion estimation for the inter prediction, which is not in an intra slice).
the fixed threshold which is independent from the maximum size (the adaptively adjusted thresholds are unique and separately adaptable for each block location of a
picture) [col. 21, line 1-3] – Note: Zhou teaches that the thresholds in his invention are adaptively adjusted thresholds and adaptable for each block location. As a result, the threshold of Zhou are not dependent on the maximum size).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Huang with Zhou to program the system to implement of Zhou’s method.
Therefore, the combination of Huang with Zhou will enable the system to improve coding efficiency [Zhou: Abstract].
Reference Notice
Additional prior arts, included in the Notice of Reference Cited, made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Philip Dang whose telephone number is (408) 918-7529. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday between 8:30 am - 5:00 pm (PST).
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, Sath Perungavoor can be reached on 571-272-7455. 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./Philip P. Dang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488