CTNF 19/061,493 CTNF 91883 DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to the application filed on February 24, 2025. Claims 1 – 20 are pending. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 priority based on U.S. provisional applications 63/558,846 filed on February 28, 2024. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on February 25, 2025. The Examiner notes that NPL entries 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13 contain citations of references that do not comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.98(b)(5) which requires "Each publication listed in an information disclosure statement must be identified by publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date, and place of publication." The Examiner is unable to timely consider the various coding standards and working drafts of said coding standard in their entirety as they comprise hundreds of pages. The Examiner encourages resubmission with the pertinent portions of these references pointed out. Accordingly, the references have been placed on the record, but have not been considered by the Examiner. Specification 06-16 AIA Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. 06-13 AIA The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses the phrase “ Disclosed herein are various aspects of systems…” and “ Disclosed implementations include…”, which can be implied . Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1 - 5, 9 - 13 and 17 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Guo et al., (US 2013/0107950 A1) referred to as Guo hereinafter . Regarding Claim 1, Guo discloses a method for decoding a video stream (Fig. 15, Par. [0029] system 10 may be configured to support one-way or two-way video transmission to support applications such as video streaming, video playback, video broadcasting, and/or video telephony)) comprising: decoding a transform block partition type (Par. [0112] video decoder 30 may be configured to receive a first syntax element indicating a transform type, wherein the transform type is selected from at least one of a square transform partition and a non-square transform partition (220)); determining a plurality of sub-blocks for a block based on the decoded transform block partition type (Par. [0115] video decoder 30 may be further configured to partition the one or more of the multiple prediction units into sub-blocks (i.e. first sub-block) according to the determined transform partition, and to determine a further partition type for each of the sub-blocks (i.e. second sub-block)), wherein a first sub-block of the plurality of sub-blocks has a different shape and a different size as compared to a second sub-block of the plurality of sub-blocks (Par. [0074] As shown in FIG. 9, the first N.times.N PU (e.g., PU0 in FIG. 8 with NS_Flag=1, NS_direction_flag=0) may be first split into four vertically oriented, non-square transform sub-blocks 43A, 43B, 43C and 43D (i.e. first sub-block) of size (1/4N).times.N. For each sub-block, an additional flag(s) may be signaled to indicate if the sub-block (i.e. second sub-block) will be further split. For example, if this flag is 1, the (1/4N).times.N block is further split (i.e. different shape and size) 43A); performing an intra prediction for the first sub-block to produce a first predictor for the first sub-block (Par. [0113] the coding unit is encoded using intra-prediction (224)); performing an inverse transform for the first sub-block to produce a first residual for the first sub-block (Par. [0116] Video decoder 30 may be further configured to apply an inverse transform to each of the transform partitions to decode residual prediction data (228)); and generating decoded pixels for the first sub-block using the first predictor and first residual (Par. [0116] Video decoder 30 may be further configured to decode the residual prediction data using intra-prediction to produce decoded video data (230), where residual data represents pixel differences between the original block to be coded and the predictive block, see Par. [0004]). Regarding Claim 2, Guo discloses claim 1. Guo further discloses wherein the first sub-block has a first dimension that is one quarter of a first corresponding dimension of the block (Par. [0074] As shown in FIG. 9, the first N.times.N PU (e.g., PU0 in FIG. 8 with NS_Flag=1, NS_direction_flag=0) may be first split into four vertically oriented, non-square transform sub-blocks 43A, 43B (i.e. first sub-block), 43C and 43D of size (1/4N).times.N.) and the second sub-block has a first dimension that is one half of the first corresponding dimension of the block (Par. [0075] sub-block 43A (i.e. second sub-block) may be split into four (1/4N).times.(1/4N) transform partitions or split into four (1/8N).times.(1/2N) transform partitions) . Regarding Claim 3, Guo discloses claim 2. Guo further discloses wherein the first dimension of the first sub-block, the first dimension of the second sub-block, and the first corresponding dimension of the block each correspond to either a width or a height (Fig. 9, Par. [0060] A video block may correspond to a coding node within a CU. The video blocks may have fixed or varying sizes, and may differ in size according to a specified coding standard, Par. [0065] The partition of block 33 is sometimes referred to as an hN.times.2N partition. In this context, the h refers to "half." As such, the width (i.e., hN) of an hN.times.2N partition is 1/4 the length of the height (i.e., 2N) of the partition). Regarding Claim 4, Guo discloses claim 3. Guo further discloses wherein decoding the transform block partition type includes decoding a first syntax element and a second syntax element (Par. [0007] syntax elements are signaled to indicate the type of partition (e.g., square or non-square) (i.e. first syntax element), and the direction of the partition (e.g., vertical or horizontal) (i.e. second syntax element) in the case of a non-square partition), and determining the transform block partition type based on the first syntax element, the second syntax element, an indication of whether horizontal partitioning is allowed, and an indication of whether vertical partitioning is allowed (Par. [0067]-[0071] NS_Flag (Non-square flag): this flag indicates if the N.times.N transform partition is selected. For example, if NS_Flag=0, it means the N.times.N transform is selected; if NS_Flag=1, it means that a non-square (e.g., hN.times.2N or 2N.times.hN) transform is selected (i.e. vertical and horizontal partitioning is allowed). NS_direction_Flag: this flag indicates which non-square transform has been selected (i.e. NS_Flag = 1). For example, if NS_direction_Flag=0, it means the vertically-oriented transform (hN.times.2N) is selected; if NS_direction_Flag=1, it means the horizontally-oriented transform (2N.times.hN) is selected.). Regarding Claim 5, Guo discloses claim 1. Guo further discloses further comprising determining an ordering of the sub-blocks based on the decoded transform block partition type (Par. [0005] The quantized transform coefficients, initially arranged in a two-dimensional array, may be scanned in a particular order to produce a one-dimensional vector of transform coefficients for entropy coding. Par. [0093] a scan position of the coefficient corresponding to the syntax elements, block type, and/or transform type), wherein performing the intra prediction for the first sub-block is based on the ordering (Par. [0086] Intra-prediction unit 46 may predict the received block relative to neighboring, previously coded blocks, e.g., blocks above, above and to the right, above and to the left, or to the left of the current block, assuming a left-to-right, top-to-bottom encoding order for blocks. Intra-prediction unit 46 may be configured with a variety of different intra-prediction modes. For example, intra-prediction unit 46 may be configured with a certain number of directional prediction modes, e.g., thirty-five directional prediction modes, based on the size of the CU being encoded). Claims 9 – 13 are drawn to the apparatus of using the corresponding method claimed in Claims 1 – 5, respectively. Therefore apparatus Claims 9 – 13 correspond to method Claims 1 – 5, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above. Claim 9 further recites a video decoding apparatus comprising a circuitry that performs operations (See Guo, Par. [0039] Video encoder 20 and video decoder 30 each may be implemented as any of a variety of suitable encoder circuitry). Claims 17 – 20 are drawn to the non-transitory computer readable medium of using the corresponding method claimed in Claims 1 – 4, respectively. Therefore apparatus Claims 17 – 20 correspond to method Claims 1 – 4, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above. Claim 17 further recites a non-transitory computer readable medium including an encoded bitstream (See Guo discloses in Fig. 1 and Par. [0027] Encoded video data (i.e. bitstream) may also be stored on storage medium 34) that, when processed by a decoder, causes a production of an output video stream, wherein the decoder processes the encoded bitstream using operations (See MPEP §2113 recites: "Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps", See Guo, Fig. 13, Par. [0039] a device may store instructions for the software in a suitable, non-transitory computer-readable medium and execute the instructions in hardware using one or more processors to perform the techniques of this disclosure. Each of video encoder 20 and video decoder 30 may be included in one or more encoders or decoders, either of which may be integrated as part of a combined encoder/decoder (CODEC) in a respective device) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6, 7, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (US 2013/0107950 A1) in view of JUNG et al., (US 2011/0028412 A1) referred to as JUNG hereinafter . Regarding Claim 6, Guo discloses claim 5. Guo further discloses the ordering is not a raster scan order (Par. [0005] The quantized transform coefficients, initially arranged in a two-dimensional array, may be scanned in a particular order to produce a one-dimensional vector of transform coefficients for entropy coding). Guo does not specifically disclose they type of scan order. Therefore, Guo fails to explicitly teach the ordering is not a raster scan order. However, JUNG teaches the ordering is not a raster scan order (Par. [0036] when a first coding unit, of the plurality of coding units, which is adjacent to a second coding unit, of the plurality of coding units, is scanned later than the second coding unit according to a raster scanning order and the first coding unit is scanned earlier than the second coding unit according to a zigzag scanning order). References Guo and JUNG are considered to be analogous art because they relate to transform block partitioning. Therefore, it would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifying not a raster scan order as suggested by JUNG in the invention of Guo. This modification would allow the use of hierarchical coding to consider a maximum height, a maximum width, and a maximum depth of coding units which may be adaptively determined according to the characteristics of the image, or may be differently set by a use (See JUNG, Par. [0138]). Regarding Claim 7 , Guo in view of JUNG teaches claim 6. Guo further teaches wherein the ordering is based on availability of pixels required to perform intra prediction (Par. [0005] An intra-coded block is encoded according to an intra-coding mode and the residual data. For further compression, the residual data may be transformed from the pixel domain to a transform domain, resulting in residual transform coefficients, which then may be quantized. The quantized transform coefficients, initially arranged in a two-dimensional array, may be scanned in a particular order to produce a one-dimensional vector of transform coefficients for entropy coding). Claims 14 and 15 are drawn to the apparatus of using the corresponding method claimed in Claims 6 and 7, respectively. Therefore apparatus Claims 14 and 15 correspond to method Claims 6 and 7, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (US 2013/0107950 A1), in view of JUNG (US 2011/0028412 A1) , and in further view of Li et al., (US 2020/0336741 A1) referred to as Li hereinafter . Regarding Claim 8 , Guo in view of JUNG teaches claim 7. Guo further teaches wherein determining the plurality of sub-blocks for the block ( Par. [0115] video decoder 30 may be further configured to partition the one or more of the multiple prediction units into sub-blocks (i.e. first sub-block) according to the determined transform partition, and to determine a further partition type for each of the sub-blocks) and the ordering of the sub-blocks based on the decoded transform block partition type ( Par. [0093] a scan position of the coefficient corresponding to the syntax elements, block type, and/or transform type ). Guo in view of JUNG does not specifically teach lookup table. Therefore, Guo in view of JUNG fails to explicitly teach obtaining information from a row of a lookup table including information associated with the decoded transform block partition type. However, Li teaches obtaining information from a row of a lookup table including information associated with the decoded transform block partition type (Par. [0058] to indicate the availability of all possibilities of partition traces (a partition trace is how a block is partitioned to a given partition pattern, i.e., the partition type of each depth) in a pre-defined look-up table that is accessible to both encoder and decoder. When deciding whether a split type and/or direction is allowed or signaled, the corresponding partition will be converted to a number and indexed to the pre-defined look-up table (i.e. row of a look-up table), and the availability is given from that look-up table, if the corresponding partition is not available, then the splitting will not be signaled or allowed). References Guo, JUNG and Li are considered to be analogous art because they relate to transform block partitioning. Therefore, it would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifying not a raster scan order as suggested by Li in the inventions of Guo and JUNG. This modification would provide an indication of the availability of all possibilities of how a block is partitioned to a given partition type of each depth (See Li, Par. [0058]). Claim 16 is drawn to the apparatus of using the corresponding method claimed in Claim 8. Therefore apparatus Claim 16 corresponds to method Claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above. Conclusion The prior art references made of record are not relied upon but are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. LEE et al. (US 2021/0274197 A1) teaches transform coefficient grouping, which is a unit of transform coefficient encoding, and a transform coefficient scanning method. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to SUSAN E HODGES whose telephone number is (571)270-0498. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 8:00 am (EST) to 4:00 pm (EST). If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Brian T. Pendleton, can be reached on (571) 272-7527. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /Susan E. Hodges/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425 Application/Control Number: 19/061,493 Page 2 Art Unit: 2425 Application/Control Number: 19/061,493 Page 3 Art Unit: 2425 Application/Control Number: 19/061,493 Page 4 Art Unit: 2425 Application/Control Number: 19/061,493 Page 5 Art Unit: 2425 Application/Control Number: 19/061,493 Page 6 Art Unit: 2425 Application/Control Number: 19/061,493 Page 7 Art Unit: 2425 Application/Control Number: 19/061,493 Page 8 Art Unit: 2425 Application/Control Number: 19/061,493 Page 9 Art Unit: 2425 Application/Control Number: 19/061,493 Page 10 Art Unit: 2425 Application/Control Number: 19/061,493 Page 11 Art Unit: 2425
Prosecution Insights