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
Claims 1-4 filed on 01/17/2025 are pending.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 2 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S Patent No. 12,143,576 and claims 1 and 6 of U.S Patent Application No. 18/226403. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are similar to the claims in the U.S patent or copending application to meet the limitations claimed in or the instant application. Table 1 shows comparison between the instant claims and the U.S patent or the copending application claims..
This is a non-provisionally or provisionally obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have or not in fact been patented.
Table 1: Comparison of claims in instant Application No. 19/027753 vs. U.S Patent No. 12,143,576 and U.S Patent Application No. 18/226403
Appl. 19/027753
Appl. 18/222566 (US Pat. 12,143,576)
Appl. 18/226403 (NF)
1. An image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the method comprising:
receiving partition information for a coding tree unit and a maximum size information related to a transform block;
partitioning a split target block in the coding tree unit into a plurality of coding units based on the partition information; and
performing intra prediction for each of the plurality of coding units,
wherein a partition type for the coding tree unit includes at least one of quad tree split, binary tree split and ternary tree split,
wherein the ternary tree split splits the split target block vertically or horizontally at a ratio of 1:2:1,
wherein a block related to a coding unit is split vertically based on a width of the block being greater than a maximum size of the transform block, and
wherein the block is split horizontally based on a height of the block being greater than the maximum size of the transform block.
1. An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising:
receiving partition information for a coding tree unit and size information;
partitioning a split target block in the coding tree unit into a plurality of coding units based on the partition information; and
performing intra prediction for each of the plurality of coding units,
wherein a partition type for the coding tree unit includes at least one of quad tree split, binary tree split and ternary tree split,
wherein the partition information includes quad tree split information for the quad tree split and multi-type tree split information for the binary tree split and the ternary tree split,
wherein the size information includes minimum size information of the quad tree split and information related to a maximum size of the binary tree split or a maximum size of the ternary tree split,
wherein based on a size of the split target block being equal to a minimum size of binary tree, the split target block is not split into the binary tree, and
wherein based on the size of the split target block being equal to two times as large as a minimum size of ternary tree, the split target block is not split into the ternary tree.
1. An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising:
receiving partition information for a coding tree unit;
partitioning a split target block in the coding tree unit into a plurality of coding units based on the partition information;
performing intra prediction for each of the plurality of coding units; and generating a reconstructed picture based on the intra prediction;
wherein a partition type for the coding tree unit includes at least one of quad tree split, binary tree split and ternary tree split, and
wherein the partition information includes quad tree split information for the quad tree split and multi-type tree split information for the binary tree split and the ternary tree split.
5. The image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the ternary tree split splits the split target block vertically or horizontally at a ratio of 1:2:1.
6. The image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the ternary tree split splits the split target block vertically or horizontally at a ratio of 1:2:1.
Regarding claim 1 double-patenting rejection, the corresponding claims in U.S Patent No. 12,143,576 or U.S Patent Application No. 18/226403 does not disclosed explicitly the following claim limitations [see Table 1]:
wherein a block related to a coding unit is split vertically based on a width of the block being greater than a maximum size of the transform block, and wherein the block is split horizontally based on a height of the block being greater than the maximum size of the transform block.
However in the same field of endeavor Zheng [US 2014/0079332 A1] discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein a block (i.e. ‘a current transform block’) related to a coding unit is split vertically [Fig. 5A, 6: ‘a splitting direction is a vertical direction’] based on a width of the block being greater than a maximum size of the transform block (i.e. ‘When the size of the transform block exceeds the preset maximum …’) [para. 0072, 0081: ‘When the size of the transform block exceeds the preset maximum, the transform block should be split into transform of a smaller size’], and
wherein the block is split horizontally [Fig. 5B, 7: ‘a splitting direction is a vertical direction’] based on a height of the block being greater than (i.e. ‘When the size of the transform block exceeds the preset maximum …’) the maximum size of the transform block [para. 0072, 0081: ‘When the size of the transform block exceeds the preset maximum, the transform block should be split into transform of a smaller size’].
Zheng is combinable because Zheng is in the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teaching of Zheng as motivation to split a transform block accordingly to the splitting direction information, thereby effectively reducing complexity of a coding process [Zheng: para. 0014].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(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 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yasugi et al. (“Yasugi”) [U.S Patent No. 11,722,664 B2]
Regarding claim 3, Yasugi meets the claim limitations as follows:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording-medium storing a bitstream which is generated by the image encoding method of claim 2 [Fig. 4, 5: encoding/decoding apparatus; col. 6, ll. 45-60: ‘a storage medium that records the coding stream Te, such as Digital Versatile Disc (DVD) and Blueray Disc (BD)’].
Note: To be given patentable weight, the recording medium and the bitstream (i.e. descriptive material) must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the descriptive material performs some function with respect to the recording medium to which it is associated. See MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium” merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists”. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 3 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure of the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III).
Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by reference Yasugi which recites a storage medium (e.g. ‘DVD’ or ‘BD’) storing a bitstream.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasugi et al. (“Yasugi”) [U.S Patent No. 11,722,664 B2] in view of Zheng (“Zheng”) [US 2014/0079332 A1]
Regarding claim 1, Yasugi meets the claim limitations as follows:
An image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus [Fig. 4, 5], the method comprising:
receiving partition information for a coding tree unit (e.g. ‘shapes of partitions’; ‘a partition tree (PT) flag’ or ‘split direction flag’) [Figs. 7-9, 12-74] and a maximum size information (i.e.’maxPTSize’) [col. 24, ll. 40-65] related to a transform block;
partitioning a split target block in the coding tree unit [Figs. 7-9, 12-74] into a plurality of coding units based on the partition information; and
performing intra prediction [Fig. 4, 5: intra prediction parameter decoder] for each of the plurality of coding units,
wherein a partition type for the coding tree unit includes at least one of quad tree split, binary tree split and ternary tree split [Figs. 7-9],
wherein the ternary tree split splits the split target block vertically or horizontally at a ratio of 1:2:1 [Fig. 14A, 14B; col. 50, ll. 60-66; col. 51, ll. 1-5: ‘splits the target block (target node) in 1:2:1 in the horizontal direction and 1:2:1 in the vertical direction’],
wherein a block related to a coding unit is split vertically based on a width of the block being greater than a maximum size of the transform block [col. 24, 38: ‘Condition 2: … a maximum value of a size of a CU’], and
wherein the block is split horizontally based on a height of the block being greater than the maximum size of the transform block [col. 24, 38: ‘Condition 2: … a maximum value of a size of a CU’].
Yasugi does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein a block related to a coding unit is split vertically based on a width of the block being greater than a maximum size of the transform block, and wherein the block is split horizontally based on a height of the block being greater than the maximum size of the transform block.
However in the same field of endeavor Zheng discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein a block (i.e. ‘a current transform block’) related to a coding unit is split vertically [Fig. 5A, 6: ‘a splitting direction is a vertical direction’] based on a width of the block being greater than a maximum size of the transform block (i.e. ‘When the size of the transform block exceeds the preset maximum …’) [para. 0072, 0081: ‘When the size of the transform block exceeds the preset maximum, the transform block should be split into transform of a smaller size’], and
wherein the block is split horizontally [Fig. 5B, 7: ‘a splitting direction is a vertical direction’] based on a height of the block being greater than (i.e. ‘When the size of the transform block exceeds the preset maximum …’) the maximum size of the transform block [para. 0072, 0081: ‘When the size of the transform block exceeds the preset maximum, the transform block should be split into transform of a smaller size’].
Yasugi and Zheng are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teaching of Zheng with Yasugi as motivation to split a transform block accordingly to the splitting direction information, thereby effectively reducing complexity of a coding process [Zheng: para. 0014].
Regarding claim 2, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 1 in the form of “An image encoding method” and rejected as per discussion for claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Yasugi meets the claim limitations as follows:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording-medium storing a bitstream [Fig. 4, 5: encoding/decoding apparatus; col. 6, ll. 45-60: ‘a storage medium that records the coding stream Te, such as Digital Versatile Disc (DVD) and Blueray Disc (BD)’] which is generated by the image encoding method of claim 2 [See rejection of claim 2].
Regarding claim 4, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 1 in the form of “A transmission method” and rejected as per discussion for claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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, see 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 information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488