Detailed Office Action
1. This communication is being filed in response to the submission having a mailing date of (12/10/2024) in which a (3) month Shortened Statutory Period for Response has been set.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgements
3. Upon initial entry, claims (1 -13) appear pending for examination, of which (1, 7, 13) are the three (3) parallel running independent claims on record.
Specification
4. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
5. The submitted Drawings on date (12/10/2024) has been accepted and considered under the 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) that was/were submitted on (12/10/2024 (3 files) and 09/15/2025) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner.
Claim rejection section
35 USC 102
7. 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.
7.1. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless - (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7.2. Claim (13) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Efficient Mode Decision Schemes for HEVC Inter Prediction; 2014” (hereafter “Vanne”).
Claim 13. Vanne discloses the invention as claimed - A non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method, wherein the encoding method includes: (e.g. an HEVC coding architecture and mode decision of the same, including a similar memory management module, for storing encoded data (i.e. bitstream) [section II], able to meet all the memory (CRM) and computation (CPU) requirements; [page 2; section II].
determining whether to geometrically partition a coding unit; determining, in response to the coding unit being determined to be geometrically partitioned, a block partitioning shape of the coding unit; and encoding the coding unit based on the block partitioning shape; wherein the block partitioning shape is determined as one of a plurality of partitioning shapes, wherein the plurality of partitioning shapes comprise an asymmetrical division type, and wherein encoding the coding unit comprises constructing a merge candidate list of the coding unit including merge candidates; determining a first merge candidate and a second merge candidate from the merge candidates in the merge candidate list, the first merge candidate being different from the second merge candidate; deriving first geometrical partition motion information from either L0 motion information or L1 motion information of the first merge candidate; deriving second geometrical partition motion information from either L0 motion information or L1 motion information of the second merge candidate; obtaining a prediction block of the coding unit based on the first geometrical partition motion information, the second geometrical partition motion information and the block partitioning shape of the coding unit; and encoding a residual block of the coding unit, the residual block being obtained based on the prediction block and an original block of the coding unit; (e.g. an encoder and decoder for processing CU/PU/TU data bitstreams, able to provide different block partitioning structures, employing standard CTU/CTB configuration trees and mode decision, signaled via syntax/flag elements [page 1-2]; employing symmetric/asymmetric motion partition, as illustrated in Figs. (1-2); [pages: 1 -2].)
NOTE: The Examiner would stress that this type of claim language construction (13), directed to “memory (CRM) storing medium” it merely discloses how a bitstream is generated or reconstructed during image/video coding, and the content of the bitstream is not given patentable weight as prescribed in MPEP 2111.05(III).
Applicant specifically defines CRM as (e.g. a storing medium for bitstreams generated by the coding/decoding; [Specs; 0030]); and therefore, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing encoded data (i.e. bitstream). See also MPEP §2111.05(III): Non-functional Descriptive Material there is no functional relationship between the steps or elements that describe the generation of the bitstream and intended computer system.
35 USC 103
8. This is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negative by the manner in which the invention was made.
8.1. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) that applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 USC 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 non-obviousness
8.2. Claims (1 -12) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over “Efficient Mode Decision Schemes for HEVC Inter Prediction; 2014” (hereafter “Vanne”), in view of Yamamoto; et al. “US 10,110,891 B2”, (hereafter “Yamamoto”).
Claim 1. Vanne discloses the invention substantially as claimed - A method of decoding a video, the method comprising: (e.g. an encoder, decoder methodologies of the same,
able to develop an optimized mode decision scheme (Figs. 1 -2), during CU/PU/TU processes, as a function of different block partition structures, employing standard CTU/CTB configuration tree and mode decision, signaled via syntax/flag elements [page 1-2]; similarly employing symmetric/asymmetric motion partition techniques, in accordance with HEVC codec, as illustrated in at least Figs. (1-2); [page 1-2]);
determining whether to geometrically partition a coding unit; (e.g. see geometric partition decision in Fig. 1; [page 2]);
determining, in response to the coding unit being determined to be geometrically partitioned, a block partitioning shape of the coding unit; (e.g. further partitioned in plurality of asymmetric blocks of different shapes; [Fig. 2]);
decoding the coding unit based on the block partitioning shape; (e.g. see partition step during encoding/decoding; [page 1]); wherein the block partitioning shape is determined as one of a plurality of partitioning shapes, wherein the plurality of partitioning shapes comprise an asymmetrical division type, (e.g. see split configuration of the same, including symmetric and asymmetric split of the target block, in Figs. (1 and 5);
and wherein decoding the coding unit comprises: (e.g. see pages 1 -2);
constructing a merge candidate list of the coding unit including merge candidates; (e.g. see merge mode implementation in Table 1);
determining a first merge candidate and a second merge candidate from the merge candidates in the merge candidate list, the first merge candidate being different from the second merge candidate; (e.g. see merge of Table 1, for symmetric and/or asymmetric PU, for blocks of different sizes and shapes; [pages 2 -3]);
obtaining a prediction block of the coding unit based on the first geometrical partition motion information, the second geometrical partition motion information and the block partitioning shape of the coding unit; (e.g. see AMP using motion information, for plurality of sizes and shapes, Figs (1 and 5); [pages 2 and 7]);
and reconstructing the coding unit based on the prediction block and a residual block of the coding unit; (e.g. see block decoding/reconstruction implemented in [page 1-2]).
Even when the HEVC documentation in details discloses the particularities of block prediction using “candidate lists, it is note that this limitation is not fully cited in the paper.
For the purpose of additional clarification and additional architectural support (i.e. encoder/decoder modules added) and in the same filed of endeavor, Yamamoto discloses an encoder (Figs. 25-26) and decoder (1, 12 and 24) respectively, similarly employing symmetric and asymmetric CU/PU/TU, as shown in Figs. (4, 15, 18, 22) , in accordance with the HEVC format, able to obtain a prediction block of the CU, based on the first geometrical partition motion information, the second geometrical partition motion information and the block partitioning shape of the coding unit; [Yamamoto; Cols 13 -15]); also able to - deriving first geometrical partition motion information from either L0 motion information or L1 motion information of the first merge candidate; deriving second geometrical partition motion information from either L0 motion information or L1 motion information of the second merge candidate; (e.g. candidate list configuration for inter prediction (PU), for plurality of symmetric and/or asymmetric partition/shape types (i.e. ternary split applied), as discussed in at least [Yamamoto; 34: 50]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Vanes’ paper with the codec system of Yamamoto, in order to provide (e.g. achieve reduction in the coding computation, implement encoding/decoding efficiency processes by exploiting the characteristics of the asymmetric partition; [Yamamoto; 2: 30; Summary]).
Claim 2. Vanne/Yamamoto discloses - The method of claim 1, wherein whether to geometrically partition the coding unit is determined based on a flag representing whether or not the coding unit is geometrically partitioned; (e.g. Vanne discloses signaling partition type, via flag/syntax in accordance with HEVC; [section II]). Similarly, Yamamoto discloses (e.g. see encoded data elements, syntax type, predicted parameters, merge flag and merge index Fig. 12; [Yamamoto; Col, 28], signaled via “PU syntax Table” of Fig. 31; [Yamamoto; Col. 35]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 3. Vanne/Yamamoto discloses - The method of claim 2, wherein the flag representing whether or not the coding unit is geometrically partitioned is determined based on coding parameters of the coding unit; (e.g. see partition shape decision of the same, in Fig. 4; [Yamamoto; 4: 05; 9: 01; Col. 11-12], signaled via “PU syntax Table” of Fig. 31; [Yamamoto; Col. 35]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 4. Vanne/Yamamoto discloses - The method of claim 1, wherein the block partitioning shape is determined based on an index indicating the block partitioning shape among the plurality of partitioning shapes; (e.g. see indexation of the mode decision for the PU portioning structure (symmetric/asymmetric) scheme, in at least Fig. 2; [Vanne]. See also Fig. 4; [Yamamoto; 4: 05; 9: 01; Col. 11-12]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 5. Vanne/Yamamoto discloses - The method of claim 4, wherein a partition direction and a partition distance of the coding unit is derived from the index; (e.g. Fig. 2 [Vanne] and Fig. 4 [Yamamoto], of the structure scheme including size, shape, direction and magnitude, signaled via “PU syntax Table” of Fig. 31; [Yamamoto; Col. 35]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 6. Vanne/Yamamoto discloses - The method of claim 1, wherein the first merge candidate and the second merge candidate are determined based on first merge index information and second merge index information of the coding unit; (e.g. candidate list configuration for inter prediction (PU), for plurality of symmetric and/or asymmetric partition/shape types (i.e. ternary split applied), [Yamamoto; 34: 50]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 7. Vanne/Yamamoto discloses - A method of encoding a video, the method comprising: determining whether to geometrically partition a coding unit; determining, in response to the coding unit being determined to be geometrically partitioned, a block partitioning shape of the coding unit; and encoding the coding unit based on the block partitioning shape; wherein the block partitioning shape is determined as one of a plurality of partitioning shapes, wherein the plurality of partitioning shapes comprise an asymmetrical division type, and wherein encoding the coding unit comprises constructing a merge candidate list of the coding unit including merge candidates; determining a first merge candidate and a second merge candidate from the merge candidates in the merge candidate list, the first merge candidate being different from the second merge candidate; deriving first geometrical partition motion information from either L0 motion information or L1 motion information of the first merge candidate; deriving second geometrical partition motion information from either L0 motion information or L1 motion information of the second merge candidate; obtaining a prediction block of the coding unit based on the first geometrical partition motion information, the second geometrical partition motion information and the block partitioning shape of the coding unit; and encoding a residual block of the coding unit, the residual block being obtained based on the prediction block and an original block of the coding unit. (Current lists all the same elements as recite in Claim 1 above, but in “Method for encoding form” instead, and is/are therefore on the same premise.)
Claim 8. Vanne/Yamamoto discloses - The method of claim 7, wherein a flag representing whether or not the coding unit is geometrically partitioned is encoded into a bitstream. (e.g. Vanne discloses signaling partition type, via flag/syntax, in accordance with HEVC; [section II]). Similarly, Yamamoto discloses (e.g. see encoded data elements, syntax type, predicted parameters, merge flag and merge index Fig. 12; [Yamamoto; Col, 28], signaled via “PU syntax Table” of Fig. 31; [Yamamoto; Col. 35]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 9. Vanne/Yamamoto discloses -The method of claim 8, wherein the flag representing whether or not the coding unit is geometrically partitioned is determined based on coding parameters of the coding unit. (The same rationale and motivation apply as given to Claim 3 above.)
Claim 10. Vanne/Yamamoto discloses - The method of claim 7, wherein an index indicating the block partitioning shape among the plurality of partitioning shapes is encoded into a bitstream. (e.g. see indexation of the mode decision for the PU portioning structure (symmetric/asymmetric) scheme, in at least Fig. 2; [Vanne]. See Fig. 4; [Yamamoto; 4: 05; 9: 01; Col. 11-12]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 11. Vanne/Yamamoto discloses - The method of claim 10, wherein the index indicating the block partitioning shape represents a partition direction and a partition distance of the coding unit. (The same rationale and motivation apply as given to Claim 5 above.)
Claim 12. Vanne/Yamamoto discloses - The method of claim 7, wherein first merge index information and second merge index information of the coding unit determined based on the first merge candidate and the second merge candidate are encoded into a bitstream; (The same rationale and motivation apply as given to Claim 6 above.)
Prior Art Citations
9. The following List of prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is/are considered
pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
9.1. Patent documentation
US 10,110,891 B2 Yamamoto; et al. H04N19/91; H04N19/96; H04N19/463;
US 10,630,999 B2 Yamamoto; et al. H04N19/463; H04N19/91; H04N19/96;
US 11,350,107 B2 Jun; Dong et al. H04N19/105; H04N19/159; H04N19/11;
US 12,155,843 B2 Jun; Dong et al. H04N19/105; H04N19/159; H04N19/11;
US 12,063,365 B2 Lee; Ha et al. H04N19/132; H04N19/70; H04N19/137;
9.2. Non-Patent documentation:
_ Test results of asymmetric motion partition; Kim; 2011;
_ Content modeling for asymmetric partitioning on partition mode; Chien; 2012;
_ Efficient Mode Decision Schemes for HEVC inter prediction; Vanne; 2014;
CONCLUSIONS
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS PEREZ-FUENTES (luis.perez-fuentes@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 270 -1168. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, WILLIAM VAUGHN can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272 -3922. 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, 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 system, please call (800) 786 -9199 (USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272 -1000.
/LUIS PEREZ-FUENTES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481.