DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see application, filed 04/15/2026, with respect to the 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The DP rejection still holds in view of Patent ‘045 and is not overcome due to the amendments. Patent ‘045 claims analogous limitations in claims 6, 14, 18 and/or 22.
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the Guo reference are not persuasive. Guo discloses partitioning each LCU/CTB into CU’s (Guo, [0052-0053]), and for non-partitioned CU’s (i.e. leaf nodes), partitioning the CU into TU’s (Guo, [0060-0061]). Also, Guo discloses that block splitting is performed when the size of the CU is greater than the max TU size for chroma (Guo, [0075 and/or 0085]). Therefore, a leaf CU for chroma is split until it reaches the max TU size. In regards to “recursively splitting”, Guo also discloses the maximum-allowable TU size based on encoding parameters (Guo, [0078]) and therefore is being interpreted as 16x16. Therefore, a CU of size 64x64 will be recursively split down to the max-TU size for chroma (i.e. 64x64 to 32x32 to 16x16).
For evidence, Chen (US 20110090967) para. [0365] shows the maximum size for a transform unit for chroma is 16x16 & Rosewarne (US 20140192904) para. [0128] chroma maximum transform size is 16x16 for chroma format 4:2:2 or 4:2:0.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 16/076,170, filed on 02/03/2017.
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 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,109,045. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claims are broader in scope than the patent listed above.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20120230421) in view of Guo et al. (herein after will be referred to as Guo) (US 20130266074).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a method comprising:
splitting a luminance channel of an image unit according to a luma coding-tree; and, [See Chen [0027] The RQT applies to both luma/chroma of a CU. RQT is a representation of the partitioning.]
splitting a chrominance unit representative of at least one chrominance channel of the image unit according to a chroma coding-tree, [See Chen [0027] The RQT applies to both luma/chroma of a CU. RQT is a representation of the partitioning.]
wherein splitting the chrominance unit comprises: determining whether the chroma coding-tree and the luma coding-tree are identical; and [See Chen [Fig. 7] Step (200) is a decision if luma/chroma use the same RQT depths or different RQT depths.]
signaling an information data indicating whether the chroma coding-tree and the luma coding-tree are identical; [See Chen [0135] Flag indicating that transforms for chroma/luma are applied at different RQT depths.]
the information data being a flag equal to a first value when the chroma coding-tree and the luma coding-tree are identical and to a second value otherwise, [See Chen [0135] Flag indicating that transforms for chroma/luma are applied at different RQT depths.]
wherein responsive to the chroma and luma coding-trees being determined as different, [See Chen [0135] Flag indicating that transforms for chroma/luma are applied at different RQT depths.]
Chen does not explicitly disclose
when a size of at least one leaf of the chroma coding-tree is larger than a maximum size, then the at least one leaf is recursively split until the chroma coding-tree has leaves with a size equal to the maximum size.
However, Guo does disclose
when a size of at least one leaf of the chroma coding-tree is larger than a maximum size, then the at least one leaf is recursively split until the chroma coding-tree has leaves with a size equal to the maximum size. [See Guo [0085] When the size of the CU is larger than the maximum TU size, split the block because the biggest transform size is smaller than the current block size…for signaling chroma.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Chen to add the teachings of Guo, in order to improve upon video compression by incorporation of maximum TU sizes for chroma.
Regarding claim 2, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20150304662
US 20130195199
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 JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights