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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (US 2012/0281928) in view of Kim et al. (US 2013/0128982).
Regarding claim 1, Cohen discloses an image decoding method (see fig. 3A), comprising: obtaining a current coding tree unit (CTU) of a first size configuring a current picture (see 100 and 110 in fig. 1); determining whether to implicitly divide the current coding tree unit (see 311 in fig. 3A; e.g. see ¶ [0049]); dividing the current coding tree unit into one or more coding units (CUs) based on the determination (see 311 in fig. 3A; e.g. see ¶ [0049]); obtaining, from a bitstream (see 310 in fig. 3A), division information for the current coding unit among the one or more coding units (see 311 in fig. 3A); and dividing and decoding (see 320-330 in fig. 3A), based on the division information, the current coding unit, and wherein the coding unit is partitioned into one or two or more transform units (TUs) (see fig. 4), wherein: in case the current coding tree unit is determined to be implicitly divided, the dividing the current coding tree unit into one or more coding units (CUs) is performed implicitly by skipping decoding of division information for the current coding tree unit (e.g. see ¶ [0049]), and the dividing the current coding tree unit into one or more coding units (CUs) is performed recursively using a quadtree division method until the current coding tree unit of the first size is divided into a plurality of coding units of a second size (see fig. 4), wherein in case the current coding tree unit is determined not to be implicitly divided (see 401 in fig. 4), the dividing the current coding tree unit into one or more coding units (CUs) comprises obtaining, from the bitstream, division information for the current coding tree unit; and dividing, based on the division information, the coding tree unit into one or more coding units (see fig. 4), wherein the division information for the current coding unit comprises information indicating one among a plurality of division methods (see fig. 2), the plurality of division methods comprises a quadtree division method and a binary tree division method (see fig. 2; e.g. see ¶ [0029]).
Although Cohen discloses wherein the decoding of the coding unit comprises determining a transform and performing inverse-transforming using the determined transform (e.g. see ¶ [0029], [0050]) and intra prediction (e.g. see ¶ [0009]), it is noted Cohen does not disclose wherein the transform is with a transform matrix, and in case the coding unit is intra predicted, the transform matrix is determined in consideration of directionality of an intra prediction mode.
However, Kim discloses that it is well-known in the art of encoding/decoding wherein the transform is with a transform matrix (e.g. see ¶ [0032]), and in case the coding unit is intra predicted, the transform matrix is determined in consideration of directionality of an intra prediction mode (e.g. see ¶ [0032]).
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Kim teachings of transform process into Cohen transform for the benefit of compatibility with industries standard and practice.
Regarding claim 4, the claim(s) recite a method with analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 7, the claim(s) recite a computer readable recording medium storing a bitstream (e.g. see ¶ [0028], [0032]) with analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
(Note: Claim 7 discloses “a computer readable recording medium storing a bitstream which is generated by an image encoding method”. The claim then recites steps for obtaining the method. These steps do not add any further structure or functional limitation to the “storing a bitstream”. Hence, these steps do not add patentable weight to the claim. It is recommended to either cancel the claim, change to a method claim or add a “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream with stored instructions to decode the bitstream according to the method of ...” to consider the body of the claim).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "in case the current coding tree unit is determined to be implicitly divided", only the quadtree division method is used and any splitting method other than the quadtree splitting method is excluded according to the instant application) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Note: Claim 7 bitstream rejection was not addressed in Applicant argument.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Zheng (US 2016/0261875 A1), discloses coding tree unit splitting with various sizes.
2. Chono (US 2019/0075327 A1), discloses quadtree and binary tree split.
3. Chono (US 2019/0253737 A1), discloses quadtree and binary tree split information.
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 RICHARD T TORRENTE whose telephone number is (571)270-3702. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6:45-3:15 pm.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2988. 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.
/RICHARD T TORRENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights