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 01/17/2025.
Claims 1 – 20 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/17/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being by 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).
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].
Regarding claim 2, Jianle discloses: “wherein said first value is also indicative of a size of a virtual pipeline decoding unit (VPDU) [see page: 17; section: 3.2.6; Virtual pipeline data units (VPDUs) are defined as non-overlapping units in a picture. In hardware decoders, successive VPDUs are processed by multiple pipeline stages at the same time. The VPDU size is roughly proportional to the buffer size in most pipeline stages, so it is important to keep the VPDU size small. In most hardware decoders, the VPDU size can be set to maximum transform block (TB) size. However, in VVC, ternary tree (TT) and binary tree (BT) partition may lead to the increasing of VPDUs size].
Regarding claim 3, 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 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 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.
Regarding claim 7, 12 and 17, claim 7, 12 and 17 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 2.
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.
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).
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