DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-8 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-13, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to claims 1-8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-8 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the double patenting rejection, see pages 11-12, filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11-12 of the Applicant’s Remarks, the Applicant argues that the claims of the cited parent patents do not recite, teach, or require the limitations, “(i) the coding tree unit has a size of 128 samples by 128 samples, and (ii) when the coding unit spans a plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples in the coding tree unit, a plurality of transform units are determined such that each transform unit is included in any one of the plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples, including that different transform units are respectively included in different regions.” On page 12 of the Applicant’s Remarks, the Applicant argues that the pending claims are narrower in scope and structurally different from the claims of the parent patents, and thus do not define the same invention. Because the parent claims do not disclose or require the above-identified limitations, the present claims cannot be considered patentably indistinct merely by comparison to the parent claims. Applicant therefore respectfully requests withdrawal of the non-statutory double patenting rejection.”
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s Remarks. The Examiner would like to note that claims 1-8 were rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6-8, and 11-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,177,430 in view of TSAI et al. (Hereafter, “Tsai”) [US 2021/0092394 A1] in further view of NAM et al. (Hereafter, “Nam”) [US 2023/0370648 A1] and claims 1, 2, 5, and 7 were rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,155,870 in view of TSAI et al. (Hereafter, “Tsai”) [US 2021/0092394 A1] in further view of NAM et al. (Hereafter, “Nam”) [US 2023/0370648 A1] [See Non-Final Rejection mailed 11/20/2025, Pages 2-12].
A nonstatutory double patenting rejection, if not based on an anticipation rationale or an "unjustified timewise extension" rationale, is "analogous to [a failure to meet] the nonobviousness requirement of 35 U.S.C. 103 " except that the patent disclosure principally underlying the double patenting rejection is not considered prior art. In re Braithwaite, 379 F.2d 594, 154 USPQ 29 (CCPA 1967). Even though the specification of the applied patent or copending application is not prior art, it may still be used to interpret the applied claims. See paragraph II.B.1, above. The analysis employed with regard to nonstatutory double patenting is "similar to, but not necessarily the same as that undertaken under 35 USC § 103." In re Braat, 937 F.2d 589, 592-93, 19 USPQ2d 1289, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892 n.4, 225 USPQ 645, 648 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); see also Geneva Pharmaceuticals, 349 F.3d at 1378 n.1, 68 USPQ2d at 1869 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Basell Poliolefine, 547 F.3d 1371, 1379, 89 USPQ2d 1030, 1036 (Fed. Cir. 2008). MPEP 804.II.B.3.
As stated in the previous non-final rejection, the claims were rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the parent patents (U.S. Patent No. 12,177,430 and U.S. Patent No. 12,155,870) in view of TSAI et al. (Hereafter, “Tsai”) [US 2021/0092394 A1] and NAM et al. (Hereafter, “Nam”) [US 2023/0370648 A1]. The Applicant fails to acknowledge the Tsai and Nam references when arguing the nonstatutory double patenting rejections.
Any nonstatutory double patenting rejection made under the obviousness analysis should make clear: (A) The differences between the inventions defined by the conflicting claims — a claim in the patent compared to a claim in the application; and (B) The reasons why a person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the invention defined in the claim at issue would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in a claim in the patent. MPEP 804.II.B.3.
On page 6 of the non-final rejection, the Examiner acknowledges that the U.S. Patent No. 12,177,430 fails to explicitly disclose a maximum size selectable for luminance component of the transform unit in the coding unit is 32 samples which is one-fourth of 128 samples, wherein a size of the coding tree unit is 128 samples by 128 samples, and wherein, when the coding unit spans a plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples in the coding tree unit: a first transform unit of a plurality of transform units in the coding unit is included in a first region of the plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples; a second transform unit, different from the first transform unit, of the plurality of transform units in the coding unit is included in a second region, different from the first region, of the plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples; and the plurality of transform units are determined so that each transform unit of the plurality of transform units is included in any of the plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples. Further, on pages 6-8 of the non-final rejection, the Examiner outlines that Tsai and Nam disclose the claim limitations above and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention with teachings of Tsai and Nam, which can be seen below in the current nonstatutory double patenting rejections.
On page 10 of the non-final rejection, the Examiner acknowledges that the U.S. Patent No. 12,155,870 fails to explicitly disclose a maximum size selectable for luminance component of the transform unit in the coding unit is 32 samples which is one-fourth of 128 samples even if at least one side of the coding unit is 128 samples, wherein, a shape in which one side of a horizontal side and a vertical side is longer than other side is capable of being used as a shape of a transform unit in the predetermined manner, wherein a size of the coding tree unit is 128 samples by 128 samples, and wherein, when the coding unit spans a plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples in the coding tree unit: a first transform unit of a plurality of transform units in the coding unit is included in a first region of the plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples; a second transform unit, different from the first transform unit, of the plurality of transform units in the coding unit is included in a second region, different from the first region, of the plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples; and the plurality of transform units are determined so that each transform unit of the plurality of transform units is included in any of the plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples. Further, on pages 10-12 of the non-final rejection, the Examiner outlines that Tsai and Nam disclose the claim limitations above and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention with teachings of Tsai and Nam, which can be seen below in the current nonstatutory double patenting rejections.
Therefore, as can be seen in the current nonstatutory double patenting rejections below and in the previous non-final rejection, the obviousness analysis for the nonstatutory double patenting rejections have been made clear.
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 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6-8, and 11-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,177,430 in view of TSAI et al. (Hereafter, “Tsai”) [US 2021/0092394 A1] in further view of NAM et al. (Hereafter, “Nam”) [US 2023/0370648 A1].
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they cover mutually associated subject matter. Thus, a terminal disclaimer is required. An analysis of the claims can be seen in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Instant Application No. 18/935,302 vs. U.S. Patent No. 12,177,430
Instant Application No. 18/935,302 Claims (Difference Emphasis Added)
U.S. Patent No. 12,177,430 Claims (Difference Emphasis Added)
1. A method for decoding a coding unit from a bitstream according to a predetermined manner, comprising: decoding information from the bitstream for determining the coding unit in a coding tree unit, determining the coding unit based on the information, determining a transform unit in the coding unit, and decoding the coding unit using the transform unit, wherein in the predetermined manner, a length of a side of the coding unit can be 128 samples, wherein, when a first constraint regarding a size of the transform unit is used to determine the transform unit, a maximum size selectable for luminance component of the transform unit in the coding unit is 32 samples which is one-fourth of 128 samples even if at least one side of the coding unit is 128 samples, wherein, a shape in which one side of a horizontal side and a vertical side is longer than other side is capable of being used as a shape of a transform unit in the predetermined manner, wherein the coding unit can be determined by dividing the coding tree unit using a ternary split, wherein a size of the coding tree unit is 128 samples by 128 samples, and wherein, when the coding unit spans a plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples in the coding tree unit: a first transform unit of a plurality of transform units in the coding unit is included in a first region of the plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples; a second transform unit, different from the first transform unit, of the plurality of transform units in the coding unit is included in a second region, different from the first region, of the plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples; and the plurality of transform units are determined so that each transform unit of the plurality of transform units is included in any of the plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples, wherein, the method further comprises: performing first and second tests 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, and the second test including comparison between a fixed threshold and at least one of a width and a height of the coding unit; and 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, wherein, the second test is performed after the first test in a case where it is determined, in the first test, that the current slice type is not the intra slice.
1. An image decoding method for decoding a coding unit from a bitstream according to a predetermined manner, the method comprising: decoding, from the bitstream, information for determining a coding unit in a coding tree unit, wherein at least one side of the coding unit is capable of being 128 samples in the predetermined manner; 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; 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, wherein, a shape in which one side of a horizontal side and a vertical side is longer than other side is capable of being used as a shape of a transform unit in the predetermined manner, and wherein, the method further comprises: performing first and second tests 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, and the second test including comparison between a fixed threshold and at least one of a width and a height of the coding unit; and determining that 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, wherein, the second test is performed after the first test in a case where it is determined, in the first test, that the current slice type is not the intra slice, and the second test is not performed in a case where it is determined, in the first test, that the current slice type is the intra slice.
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein a ternary split is capable of being used for determining the coding unit in the coding tree unit.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one side of the coding unit is 128 samples.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one side of the coding unit is 128 samples.
Claim 3 is the same as claim 1 in encoding form.
Claim 6 is the same as claim 1 in encoding form.
Claim 8 is the same as claim 3 in encoding form.
Claim 4 is the same as claim 2 in encoding form.
Claim 7 is the same as claim 2 in encoding form.
Claim 5 is the same as claim 1 in apparatus form.
Claim 11 is the same as claim 1 in apparatus form.
Claim 6 is the same as claim 3 in apparatus form.
Claim 13 is the same as claim 6 in apparatus form.
Claim 7 is the same as claim 1 in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form.
Claim 12 is the same as claim 1 in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form.
Claim 8 is the same as claim 3 in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form.
Claim 14 is the same as claim 6 in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form.
Some of the differences in the claim limitations in the U.S. Patent are narrower than the instant application, and thus it would have been obvious to make the claim limitations in the instant application broader by removing the specific language found in the U.S. Patent.
The U.S. Patent fails to explicitly disclose a maximum size selectable for luminance component of the transform unit in the coding unit is 32 samples which is one-fourth of 128 samples, wherein a size of the coding tree unit is 128 samples by 128 samples, and wherein, when the coding unit spans a plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples in the coding tree unit: a first transform unit of a plurality of transform units in the coding unit is included in a first region of the plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples; a second transform unit, different from the first transform unit, of the plurality of transform units in the coding unit is included in a second region, different from the first region, of the plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples; and the plurality of transform units are determined so that each transform unit of the plurality of transform units is included in any of the plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples.
Tsai discloses a maximum size selectable for luminance component of the transform unit in the coding unit is 32 samples which is one-fourth of 128 samples ([0055] In HEVC, the CTU size in units of luma samples and the maximum transform block size can be specified in the SPS. The maximum CU size is the same as the specified CTU size. [0056] In the JEM, the CTU size in units of luma samples can be specified in the SPS and the maximum TU size in both width and height is pre-determined to be equal to 128 luma samples. [0061] the CU size is 128×128 and the supported maximum transform size is 32×32), wherein a size of the coding tree unit is 128 samples by 128 samples ([0061] the CU size is 128x128).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the invention with the known CU size of 128x128 and the maximum transform size being 32 in luma samples, wherein the TU can be a non-square as taught by Tsai. The motivation behind this modification would have been to reduce computational complexity associated with transform coding process [See Tsai].
Nam discloses wherein a size of the coding tree unit is 128 samples by 128 samples ([0107] a CTU size may be set to 128×128 luma samples), and wherein, when the coding unit spans a plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples in the coding tree unit ([0229] the CU of 128x128 has four 64x64 blocks): a first transform unit of a plurality of transform units in the coding unit is included in a first region of the plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples ([0237] the 32x128 CU is partitioned into four 32x32 TUs); a second transform unit, different from the first transform unit, of the plurality of transform units in the coding unit is included in a second region, different from the first region, of the plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples ([0237] the 32x128 CU is partitioned into four 32x32 TUs); and the plurality of transform units are determined so that each transform unit of the plurality of transform units is included in any of the plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples ([0229 and 237] the 32x32 TUs span the 32x128 CU which are located between the left 64x64 blocks of the 128x128 CTU).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the invention with the partitioning of the 128x128 CU into rectangles wherein one of the sides is 128 and then partitioning the CUs into TUs that span the longer side of the CU as taught by Nam in order to improve encoding efficiency and partitioning [See Nam].
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,155,870 in view of TSAI et al. (Hereafter, “Tsai”) [US 2021/0092394 A1] in further view of NAM et al. (Hereafter, “Nam”) [US 2023/0370648 A1].
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they cover mutually associated subject matter. Thus, a terminal disclaimer is required. An analysis of the claims can be seen in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Instant Application No. 18/935,302 vs. U.S. Patent No. 12,155,870
Instant Application No. 18/935,302 Claims (Difference Emphasis Added)
U.S. Patent No. 12,155,870 Claims (Difference Emphasis Added)
1. A method for decoding a coding unit from a bitstream according to a predetermined manner, comprising: decoding information from the bitstream for determining the coding unit in a coding tree unit, determining the coding unit based on the information, determining a transform unit in the coding unit, and decoding the coding unit using the transform unit, wherein in the predetermined manner, a length of a side of the coding unit can be 128 samples, wherein, when a first constraint regarding a size of the transform unit is used to determine the transform unit, a maximum size selectable for luminance component of the transform unit in the coding unit is 32 samples which is one-fourth of 128 samples even if at least one side of the coding unit is 128 samples, wherein, a shape in which one side of a horizontal side and a vertical side is longer than other side is capable of being used as a shape of a transform unit in the predetermined manner, wherein the coding unit can be determined by dividing the coding tree unit using a ternary split, wherein a size of the coding tree unit is 128 samples by 128 samples, and wherein, when the coding unit spans a plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples in the coding tree unit: a first transform unit of a plurality of transform units in the coding unit is included in a first region of the plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples; a second transform unit, different from the first transform unit, of the plurality of transform units in the coding unit is included in a second region, different from the first region, of the plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples; and the plurality of transform units are determined so that each transform unit of the plurality of transform units is included in any of the plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples, wherein, the method further comprises: performing first and second tests 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, and the second test including comparison between a fixed threshold and at least one of a width and a height of the coding unit; and 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, wherein, the second test is performed after the first test in a case where it is determined, in the first test, that the current slice type is not the intra slice.
1. An image decoding method for decoding a coding unit from a bitstream according to a predetermined manner, the method comprising: decoding, from the bitstream, information for determining a coding unit in a coding tree unit, wherein at least one side of the coding unit is capable of being 128 samples in the predetermined manner; 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; 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, wherein, the method further comprises: performing first and second tests 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, and the second test including comparison between a fixed threshold and at least one of a width and a height of the coding unit; and determining that 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, wherein, the second test is performed after the first test in a case where it is determined, in the first test, that the current slice type is not the intra slice, and the second test is not performed in a case where it is determined, in the first test, that the current slice type is the intra slice.
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein a ternary split is capable of being used for determining the coding unit in the coding tree unit.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one side of the coding unit is 128 samples.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one side of the coding unit is equal to 128 samples.
Claim 5 is the same as claim 1 in apparatus form.
Claim 6 is the same as claim 1 in apparatus form.
Claim 7 is the same as claim 1 in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form.
Claim 7 is the same as claim 1 in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form.
Some of the differences in the claim limitations in the U.S. Patent are narrower than the instant application, and thus it would have been obvious to make the claim limitations in the instant application broader by removing the specific language found in the U.S. Patent.
The U.S. Patent fails to explicitly disclose a maximum size selectable for luminance component of the transform unit in the coding unit is 32 samples which is one-fourth of 128 samples even if at least one side of the coding unit is 128 samples, wherein, a shape in which one side of a horizontal side and a vertical side is longer than other side is capable of being used as a shape of a transform unit in the predetermined manner, wherein a size of the coding tree unit is 128 samples by 128 samples, and wherein, when the coding unit spans a plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples in the coding tree unit: a first transform unit of a plurality of transform units in the coding unit is included in a first region of the plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples; a second transform unit, different from the first transform unit, of the plurality of transform units in the coding unit is included in a second region, different from the first region, of the plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples; and the plurality of transform units are determined so that each transform unit of the plurality of transform units is included in any of the plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples.
Tsai discloses a maximum size selectable for luminance component of the transform unit in the coding unit is 32 samples which is one-fourth of 128 samples ([0055] In HEVC, the CTU size in units of luma samples and the maximum transform block size can be specified in the SPS. The maximum CU size is the same as the specified CTU size. [0056] In the JEM, the CTU size in units of luma samples can be specified in the SPS and the maximum TU size in both width and height is pre-determined to be equal to 128 luma samples. [0061] the CU size is 128×128 and the supported maximum transform size is 32×32), wherein a size of the coding tree unit is 128 samples by 128 samples ([0061] the CU size is 128x128).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the invention with the known CU size of 128x128 and the maximum transform size being 32 in luma samples, wherein the TU can be a non-square as taught by Tsai. The motivation behind this modification would have been to reduce computational complexity associated with transform coding process [See Tsai].
Nam discloses wherein, a shape in which one side of a horizontal side and a vertical side is longer than other side is capable of being used as a shape of a transform unit in the predetermined manner ([0237] TUs are capable of having one side longer than the other), wherein a size of the coding tree unit is 128 samples by 128 samples ([0107] a CTU size may be set to 128×128 luma samples), and wherein, when the coding unit spans a plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples in the coding tree unit ([0229] the CU of 128x128 has four 64x64 blocks): a first transform unit of a plurality of transform units in the coding unit is included in a first region of the plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples ([0237] the 32x128 CU is partitioned into four 32x32 TUs); a second transform unit, different from the first transform unit, of the plurality of transform units in the coding unit is included in a second region, different from the first region, of the plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples ([0237] the 32x128 CU is partitioned into four 32x32 TUs); and the plurality of transform units are determined so that each transform unit of the plurality of transform units is included in any of the plurality of regions of 64 samples by 64 samples ([0229 and 237] the 32x32 TUs span the 32x128 CU which are located between the left 64x64 blocks of the 128x128 CTU).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the invention with the partitioning of the 128x128 CU into rectangles wherein one of the sides is 128 and then partitioning the CUs into TUs that span the longer side of the CU as taught by Nam in order to improve encoding efficiency and partitioning [See Nam].
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kaitlin A Retallick whose telephone number is (571)270-3841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Chris 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.
/KAITLIN A RETALLICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482