DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the remarks filed on 28 APRIL 2026 and the Information Disclosure Statements.
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 05/11/2026 and 06/30/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 7-9, 12, 14-16, 18, and 19 have been amended. No claims have been canceled or added. Claims 1-20 are pending and herein examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 28 APRIL 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of previously presented U.S. Publication No. 2020/0252608 A1 (hereinafter “Ramasubramonian”) and newly presented De-Luxán-Hernández et al, “CE3: Intra Sub-Partitions Coding Mode (Tests 1.1.1 and 1.1.2)”, JVET-M0102-v5 (hereinafter “De-Luxán-Hernández”).
The claim newly requires, “wherein all of the sub-partitions share the same intra mode.” The disclosure of Ramasubramonian states the following, “the two or more partitions resulting from splitting the coding block share the same intra-prediction mode.” See Ramasubramonian, ¶ [0117]. However, the provisional application of Ramasubramonian does not include said statement. The disclosure of De-Luxán-Hernández, states the following, “[a]ll sub-partitions share the same intra mode.” See De-Luxán-Hernández, Section 1, p. 2. For this reason, the disclosure of De-Luxán-Hernández is used in combination with Ramasubramonian in rejecting the claims.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection, Applicant amends claims 8 and 15 to state, “wherein when the number is 1” and it is not clear “when” this occurs. Claims 1 and 12 each require, “wherein the number is 2 or 4.” In addition, the number represents “a number of the sub-partitions” and therefore could not be 1, because that is indicative of no partitioning and thus no sub-partitions. For these reasons, claims 8 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Claim Interpretation: The subject matter of claim 1 concerns intra sub-partitioning (ISP), both how to generate a variable for partitioning direction of ISP and the application thereof to a block. For clarity purposes, support in the originally filed specification is provided for the following limitation: “determining a first value of a variable of the current block based on a second value of a first flag and on a third value of a second flag, wherein the first value is 0 when the second value is 0, and wherein the first value is equal to the third value plus 1 when the second value is 1.”
PNG
media_image1.png
288
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The above disclosure of ¶¶ [0227-0228] and Table 4 provide support for the subject matter of claim 1. The “first value of a variable” is IntraSubPartitionsSplitType, the “second value of a first flag” is intra_subpartitions_mode_flag[x0][y0], and the “third value of a second flag” is intra_subpartitions_split_flag[x0][y0]. The limitations will be interpreted as per ¶¶ [0227-0228], recognizing the nomenclature of the variable and flags are broadly claimed and not limited by the naming conventions in the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 8 and 15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claims 8 and 15, each require, “when the number is 1”; however, it is unclear when such an occurrence happens. Claims 1 and 12 each require the number of partitions to be either 2 or 4. In addition, the number represents “a number of sub-partitions” and if there is no partitioning, then there is no sub-partition. For examination purposes, the interpretation of claims 8 and 9 includes an alternative where no partitioning occurs (e.g., a number of partitions is 1 and there are no sub-partitions) because of a minimum restriction on block size (e.g., 4x4).
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0252608 A1 (hereinafter “Ramasubramonian”) in view of De-Luxán-Hernández et al, “CE3: Intra Sub-Partitions Coding Mode (Tests 1.1.1 and 1.1.2)”, JVET-M0102-v5 (hereinafter “De-Luxán-Hernández”).
Regarding claim 1, Ramasubramonian discloses a method of video coding ([0009], “a method of encoding video data”) and comprising:
obtaining block size information of a current block ([0216], “obtaining a current block of a picture of video data.” [0217], “determining whether at least one of a width of the current block […] and a heigh of the current block […].” FIGS. 2 and 3 illustrate a current block has a width (W) and height (H), and FIGS. 4 and 5 illustrate a coding block has a width (cbWidth) and heigh (cbHeight). Additionally, see the coding unit syntax of Table 2 for determining ISP flag based on block size);
determining a first value of a variable ([0135], “IntraSubPartitionsSplitType”) of the current block based on a second value of a first flag ([0134], “intra_subpartitions_mode_flag[x0][y0]”) and on a third value of a second flag ([0135], “intra_subpartitions_split_flag[x0][y0]”), wherein the first value is 0 when the second value is 0 ([0134], “If intra_subpartitions_mode_flag[x0][y0] is equal to 0, IntraSubPartitionsSplitType is set equal to 0”), and wherein the first value is equal to the third value plus 1 when the second value is 1 ([0135], “Otherwise, the IntraSubPartitionsSplitType is set equal to 1+intra_subpartitions_split_flag[x0][y0].” Note, the “otherwise” is directed to intra_subpartitions_mode_flag[x0][y0] equaling 1);
determining a partitioning direction of the current block based on the block size information and the first value, wherein the first value being 1 indicates the partitioning direction is horizontal partitioning, and wherein the first value being 2 indicates the partitioning direction is vertical partitioning ([0164], “if the variable IntraSubPartitionsSplitType has a value equal to 1 (horizontal split ISP_HOR_SPLIT) or 2 (vertical split ISP_VER_SPLIT), the value of the variable NumIntraSubPartitions is set equal to 2 or 4 based on the dimensions of the coding unit or current block.” FIGS. 2 and 3 exemplify the number of splits and direction of the split based on current block size);
when the value of the variable indicates the horizontal or vertical partitioning, partitioning, based on the first value, the current block into a plurality of sub-partitions according to the partitioning direction and a number of the sub-partitions, wherein the number is 2 or 4([0164], “if the coding block 402 is a 4×8 block (cbWidth is equal to 4 and cbHeight is equal to 8) or an 8×4 block (cbWidth is equal to 8 and cbHeight is equal to 4), then the NumIntraSubPartitions is set to 2, to implement splitting the coding block 402 into two ISP blocks which have the minimum number of 16 samples each, based on a horizontal or a vertical split which can be indicated by the variable IntraSubPartitionsSplitType. On the other hand, if the dimensions cbWidth and cbHeight of the coding block 402 correspond to other than (greater than) the 8×4, 4×8, and 4×4 block sizes, then the NumIntraSubPartitions is set equal to 4”); and
coding the sub-partitions ([0235], “Encoding device 104 may perform intra-prediction.” Note, ISP is a form of intra-prediction and therefore when ISP is enabled, the encoding is of the resulting sub-partitions).
Ramasubramonian fails to expressly disclose wherein all of the sub-partitions share the same intra mode.
However, De-Luxán-Hernández teaches wherein all of the sub-partitions share the same intra mode (Section 1, p. 2, “All sub-partitions share the same intra mode”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have shared the intra prediction mode, as taught by De-Luxán-Hernández (Section 1), in Ramasubramonian’s disclosure. One would have been motivated to modify Ramasubramonian’s disclosure, by incorporating De-Luxán-Hernández’s disclosure, to comply with coding standards for achieving high coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, Ramasubramonian and De-Luxán-Hernández disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Ramasubramonian discloses further comprising coding the current block using an intra sub-partition (ISP) coding mode ([0005], “the use of an intra-subpartitioning (ISP) mode for splitting coding blocks of video data into sub-blocks.” Note, the coding of claim 1 already represents an ISP coding mode).
Regarding claim 3, Ramasubramonian and De-Luxán-Hernández disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Ramasubramonian discloses further comprising partitioning the current block into the sub-partitions according to the number and the partitioning direction ([0164], “if the coding block 402 is a 4×8 block (cbWidth is equal to 4 and cbHeight is equal to 8) or an 8×4 block (cbWidth is equal to 8 and cbHeight is equal to 4), then the NumIntraSubPartitions is set to 2, to implement splitting the coding block 402 into two ISP blocks which have the minimum number of 16 samples each, based on a horizontal or a vertical split which can be indicated by the variable IntraSubPartitionsSplitType. On the other hand, if the dimensions cbWidth and cbHeight of the coding block 402 correspond to other than (greater than) the 8×4, 4×8, and 4×4 block sizes, then the NumIntraSubPartitions is set equal to 4.” FIGS. 2 and 3 depict the application of splitting a coding block using ISP for splitting into 2 or 4, respectively).
Regarding claim 4, Ramasubramonian and De-Luxán-Hernández disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Ramasubramonian discloses wherein the number is 2 when the block size information is 4 x 8 or 8 x 4 or is 4 when the block size information is another size ([0164], “if the coding block 402 is a 4×8 block (cbWidth is equal to 4 and cbHeight is equal to 8) or an 8×4 block (cbWidth is equal to 8 and cbHeight is equal to 4), then the NumIntraSubPartitions is set to 2, to implement splitting the coding block 402 into two ISP blocks which have the minimum number of 16 samples each, based on a horizontal or a vertical split which can be indicated by the variable IntraSubPartitionsSplitType. On the other hand, if the dimensions cbWidth and cbHeight of the coding block 402 correspond to other than (greater than) the 8×4, 4×8, and 4×4 block sizes, then the NumIntraSubPartitions is set equal to 4”).
Regarding claim 5, Ramasubramonian and De-Luxán-Hernández disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Ramasubramonian discloses wherein the partitioning direction is the horizontal partitioning ([0025], “determining the height of the current block is greater than the size threshold; and based on the determination that the height of the current block is greater than the size threshold, determining a second split value for the intra-subpartitions split flag, the second split value corresponding to a horizontal split type”).
Regarding claim 6, Ramasubramonian and De-Luxán-Hernández disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Ramasubramonian discloses wherein each of the sub-partitions comprises 16 samples ([0139], “implement splitting the current block 202 into two ISP blocks which have the minimum number of 16 samples each, based on a horizontal or a vertical split.” Note, the 16 samples define the minimum number of samples, therefore splitting 8×4 or 4×8 will result in two sub-partitions of 16 samples each).
Regarding claim 8, Ramasubramonian and De-Luxán-Hernández disclose every limitation of claim 7, as outlined above. Additionally, Ramasubramonian discloses wherein when the number is 1, the current block does not comprise the partitioning direction and the block size information is 4 x 4 ([0164], “if the variable IntraSubPartitionsSplitType has a value equal to 0, indicating ISP_NO_SPLIT, then the value of the variable NumIntraSubPartitions is set equal to 1 (which is a default value indicating that there is no ISP applied to the coding block.” [0121], “A dimension of 4×4 for the current block 302, which would be the smallest allowable size for coding blocks in some implementations may also be excluded from splitting into sub-blocks using the ISP mode”), wherein the number is 2 and the partitioning direction is either the horizontal partitioning or the vertical partitioning when the block size information is 8 x 4 ([0164], “if the coding block 402 is a 4×8 block (cbWidth is equal to 4 and cbHeight is equal to 8) or an 8×4 block (cbWidth is equal to 8 and cbHeight is equal to 4), then the NumIntraSubPartitions is set to 2, to implement splitting the coding block 402 into two ISP blocks which have the minimum number of 16 samples each, based on a horizontal or a vertical split”), or wherein the number is 4 and the partitioning direction is either the horizontal partitioning or the vertical partitioning when the block size information is another size ([0164], “if the dimensions cbWidth and cbHeight of the coding block 402 correspond to other than (greater than) the 8×4, 4×8, and 4×4 block sizes, then the NumIntraSubPartitions is set equal to 4”).
Regarding claim 10, Ramasubramonian and De-Luxán-Hernández disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Ramasubramonian discloses further comprising: coding the partitioning direction into a first bitstream comprises coded data of the current block when encoding (FIG. 9, step 908, “generate, based on determining whether the intra-subpartitions mode flag is to be signaled for the current block, an encoded bitstream including at least the current block.” [0142] describes signaling IntraSubPartitionsSplitType); and
parsing, from a second bitstream that comprises the coded data and information on the partitioning direction, the partitioning direction when decoding (FIG. 8, step 802, “obtain an encoded video bitstream including video data” and step 804, “determine that an intra-subpartitioning mode for partitioning a current block of the video data is enabled for the current block.” [0142] describes signaling IntraSubPartitionsSplitType).
Regarding claim 11, Ramasubramonian and De-Luxán-Hernández disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Ramasubramonian discloses wherein the sub-partitions are intra prediction blocks ([0045], “the current block is an intra-predicted block.” As per [0071], the sub-partitioning of ISP is intra sub-partitioning and is based on the transform, a property of intra prediction).
Regarding claim 12, the limitations are the same as those in claim 1, as outlined above; however, written in machine form instead of process form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 12. Additionally, Ramasubramonian discloses an encoder (FIG. 1, encoding device 104), one or more memories configured to store instructions ([0272], “computer-readable data storage medium comprising program code including instructions”); and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories and configured to execute the instructions ([0272], “computer-readable data storage medium comprising program code including instructions that, when executed, performs one or more of the methods” [0273], “The program code may be executed by a processor, which may include one or more processors”).
Regarding claim 13, the limitations are the same as those in claim 6, as outlined above. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 6 applies equally as well to claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations are the same as those in claim 8, as outlined above. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 8 applies equally as well to claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations are the same as those in claim 10, as outlined above. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 10 applies equally as well to claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations are the same as those in claim 12, as outlined above; however, written in view of the decoder instead of the encoder, which is well-known as implementation the same operations inversely. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 11 applies equally as well to claim 18. Additionally, Ramasubramonian discloses a decoder (FIG. 1, decoding device 112), one or more memories configured to store instructions ([0272], “computer-readable data storage medium comprising program code including instructions”); and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memory and configured to execute the instructions ([0272], “computer-readable data storage medium comprising program code including instructions that, when executed, performs one or more of the methods” [0273], “The program code may be executed by a processor, which may include one or more processors”).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2020/0252608 A1 (hereinafter “Ramasubramonian”).
Regarding claim 19, Ramasubramonian and De-Luxán-Hernández disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having an encoded bitstream for use in decoding a video signal stored therein, wherein the encoded bitstream causes a coding device to […] (MPEP § 2111.05(I)(A), “[t]o be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a function relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to eh product to which it is associated.” MPEP § 2111.05(III), when a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists.” The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing the claimed bitstream merely serves as support for storage of the bitstream and provides no function relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore, the bitstream structure, which scope is implied by the parsing of the decoder, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. Additionally, the decoder is recited as intended use and the steps of “obtain” and “parse” of the claim amount to generic functionalities, not imparting any particular structure to the product of the preamble. See MPEP § 2111.02(II). Ramasubramonian discloses [0107], “the encoding device 104 may store encoded bitstream data in storage 108.” Note, as per the rejection of claim 18, Ramasubramonian additionally discloses each limitation if the claim were to be interpreted as storing instructions that create functionality with the decoder and the same rationale of Ramasubramonian in claim 18 applies. Additionally, the smallest block size in Ramasubramonian is 4x4 ([0121]) and therefore if a height increases, then only the horizontal partitioning would be permissible).
Regarding claim 20, the same analysis of claim 19 applies, because the claim further expands on data within the bitstream. Additionally, Ramasubramonian discloses the limitation, seen in claim 4, if the claim were to be interpreted as storing instructions that create functionality with the decoder and the same rationale of claim 4 applies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9, 14, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STUART D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-0677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 AM - 5PM EST.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/STUART D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights