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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 19/028,534 filed on 04/30/2026.
In the instant Amendment, claims 1, 6, 8, 11, 13, 16 and 18 have been amended. Claims 2, 7, 12 and 17 has been cancelled.
Claims 1 – 20 have been examined and are pending in this application. This action is made Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/17/2025 and 06/17/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3 – 6, 8 – 11, 13 – 16 and 18 - 20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the same combination of references being used in the current rejection. Even though, the primary reference Jianle which shows the concept of VPDU, explains the VPDU size, and describes that VVC how large blocks are partitioned to ensure the VPDU size. And, any ordinary skilled person in the art can or may modify the settings constraint on the minimum allowed coding block size based on the VPDU size, and using the VPDU size to set an upper bound for the minimum allowed coding block size. However, Examiner providing additional reference Chang to show that amended portion can be read into the primary reference or combining with Chang reference.
Applicant’s arguments are directed solely to the claimed invention as amended 04/30/2026, which has been rejected under new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment. See rejection below for full detail.
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, 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.
Claim 1, 3 – 6, 8 – 11, 13 – 16 and 18 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jianle Chen et al. (“Algorithm description for Versatile Video Coding and Test Model 6 (VTM 6)”, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 15th Meeting: Gothenburg, SE, 3–12 July 2019) in view of Chang et al. (US 2021/0076074 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jianle discloses: “a method for coding tree partitioning in video encoding, comprising: partitioning a largest allowed coding block into coding blocks [see page: 11; section: 3.2.1; Pictures are divided into a sequence of coding tree units (CTUs). The CTU concept is same to that of the HEVC Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found.. For a picture that has three sample arrays, a CTU consists of an N×N block of luma samples together with two corresponding blocks of chroma samples.Error! Reference source not found. shows the example of a picture divided into CTUs. The maximum allowed size of the luma block in a CTU is specified to be 128×128 (although the maximum size of the luma transform blocks is 64×64)]; and
encoding a first value indicating a minimum allowed coding block size, wherein an upper bound of said minimum allowed coding block size depends on a smaller value of a second value and a size of said largest allowed coding block [see page 13; section: The following parameters are defined and specified by SPS syntax elements for the quadtree with nested multi-type tree coding tree scheme.
– CTU size: the root node size of a quaternary tree
– MinQTSize: the minimum allowed quaternary tree leaf node size
– MaxBtSize: the maximum allowed binary tree root node size
– MaxTtSize: the maximum allowed ternary tree root node size
– MaxMttDepth: the maximum allowed hierarchy depth of multi-type tree splitting from a quadtree leaf
– MinBtSize: the minimum allowed binary tree leaf node size
– MinTtSize: the minimum allowed ternary tree leaf node size
In one example of the quadtree with nested multi-type tree coding tree structure, the CTU size is set as 128×128 luma samples with two corresponding 64×64 blocks of 4:2:0 chroma samples, the MinQTSize is set as 16×16, the MaxBtSize is set as 128×128 and MaxTtSize is set as 64×64, the MinBtSize and MinTtSize (for both width and height) is set as 4×4, and the MaxMttDepth is set as 4. The quaternary tree partitioning is applied to the CTU first to generate quaternary tree leaf nodes. The quaternary tree leaf nodes may have a size from 16×16 (i.e., the MinQTSize) to 128×128 (i.e., the CTU size). If the leaf QT node is 128×128, it will not be further split by the binary tree since the size exceeds the MaxBtSize and MaxTtSize (i.e., 64×64). Otherwise, the leaf qdtree node could be further partitioned by the multi-type tree. Therefore, the quaternary tree leaf node is also the root node for the multi-type tree and it has multi-type tree depth (mttDepth) as 0. When the multi-type tree depth reaches MaxMttDepth (i.e., 4), no further splitting is considered. When the multi-type tree node has width equal to MinBtSize and smaller or equal to 2 * MinTtSize, no further horizontal splitting is considered. Similarly, when the multi-type tree node has height equal to MinBtSize and smaller or equal to 2 * MinTtSize, no further vertical splitting is considered].
Jianle does not explicitly disclose: “wherein said second value is indicative of a size of a virtual pipeline decoding unit (VPDU)”.
However, Chang, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein said second value is indicative of a size of a virtual pipeline decoding unit (VPDU) [see para: 0070; In general, CTU 132 of FIG. 2B may be associated with parameters defining sizes of blocks corresponding to nodes of QTBT structure 130 at the first and second levels. These parameters may include a CTU size (representing a size of CTU 132 in samples), a minimum quadtree size (MinQTSize, representing a minimum allowed quadtree leaf node size), a maximum binary tree size (MaxBTSize, representing a maximum allowed binary tree root node size), a maximum binary tree depth (MaxBTDepth, representing a maximum allowed binary tree depth), and a minimum binary tree size (MinBTSize, representing the minimum allowed binary tree leaf node size). And see para: 0071, 0121 Table 1; 0127; Table 3]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coding-tree partitioning by changing the normative limits on multi-type-tree depth system disclosed by Jianle to add the teachings of Chang as above, in order to provide a means for improving minimum coded block size based on CTU size or transform size, and reduces slice-header redundancy by separately signaling when using second value that may specify maximum possible value for the virtual pipeline decoding unit [Chang see para: 0070; para: 0071, 0121 Table 1; 0127; Table 3].
Claim 2. Cancelled.
Regarding claim 3, Jianle and Chang disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Jianle discloses: “wherein said first value is equal to said size of said virtual pipeline decoding unit (VPDU) [see page: 17; sec: 3.2.6; In order to keep the VPDU size as 64x64 luma samples, the following normative partition restrictions (with syntax signaling modification) are applied in VTM6, as shown in Error! Reference source not found.: TT split is not allowed for a CU with either width or height, or both width and height equal to 128.
For a 128xN CU with N ≤ 64 (i.e. width equal to 128 and height smaller than 128), horizontal BT is not allowed.
For an Nx128 CU with N ≤ 64 (i.e. height equal to 128 and width smaller than 128), vertical BT is not allowed].
Regarding claim 4, Jianle and Chang disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Jianle discloses: “wherein said largest allowed coding block corresponds to a coding tree block [see page: 13; section: 3.2.3; In HEVC, a CTU is split into CUs by using a quaternary-tree structure denoted as coding tree to adapt to various local characteristics. The decision whether to code a picture area using inter-picture (temporal) or intra-picture (spatial) prediction is made at the leaf CU level. Each leaf CU can be further split into one, two or four PUs according to the PU splitting type. Inside one PU, the same prediction process is applied and the relevant information is transmitted to the decoder on a PU basis. After obtaining the residual block by applying the prediction process based on the PU splitting type, a leaf CU can be partitioned into transform units (TUs) according to another quaternary-tree structure similar to the coding tree for the CU. One of key feature of the HEVC structure is that it has the multiple partition conceptions including CU, PU, and TU].
Regarding claim 5, Jianle and Chang disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Jianle discloses: “wherein said second value is 64 [see page: 17; section: 3.2.6; In order to keep the VPDU size as 64x64 luma samples, the following normative partition restrictions (with syntax signaling modification) are applied in VTM6].
Regarding claim 6, 11 and 16, claim 6, 11 and 16 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 1 but for video decoding method. In general, computer memory stores both instructions for encoding and decoding technique together. Also see page: 8 and 23.
Claim 7. Cancelled.
Regarding claim 8, 13 and 18, claim 8, 13 and 18 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 3.
Regarding claim 9, 14 and 19, claim 9, 14 and 19 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 4.
Regarding claim 10, 15 and 20, claim 10, 15 and 20 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 5.
Claim 12 and 17. Cancelled.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
iKAI et al (US 2018/0192076 A1).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Masum Billah whose telephone number is (571)270-0701. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9 - 5 PM ET.
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 J. 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.
/MASUM BILLAH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights