DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the Application filing on 10 APRIL 2025.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 04/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 states, “the number of width splits and the number of height splits” and should read --a number of width splits and a number of height splits--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 13, the claim recites a first method for transmitting a bitstream and a second method for generating split information, and it is unclear what the relationship is with the second method and what is required of the second method to infringe on the first method. For instance, there is no step in which a bitstream is generated and even if it were to be implied, the broadest reasonable interpretation does not require the bitstream to be generated based on (i) a size of a processing unit, (ii) a split method, or (iii) split information. Therefore, the steps of the image encoding method do not give “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps” of transmitting a bitstream. See MPEP § 2111.04(I). In view of the above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is “transmitting a bitstream generated by an image encoding method” in which the particularities of the image encoding method have no weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 14 is directed to “a computer readable recording medium” that encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission. See MPEP § 2106.03(I). The originally filed specification states, “computer-readable recording media implemented in the form of carrier waves (e.g., transmission via the Internet).” See Specification dated 04/10/2025, ¶ [0317]. For these reasons, claim 14 is interpreted as a transitory signal and thus not one of the four statutory categories.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a series of steps for (i) deriving a size of a processing unit, (ii) deriving a split method, (iii) deriving split information, and (iv) connecting and reconstructing, which are all a mental process, capable of being performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole recite the abstract idea with no additional limitations for consideration. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional limitations to consider, other than claim 13 including “transmitting a bitstream,” which is an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(A)(iii).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0078451 A1 (hereinafter “Choi”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0336784 A1 (hereinafter “Esenlik”).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses an image decoding method ([0005], “video decoding method”) comprising:
deriving a size of a processing unit of an image ([0235], “A first picture 2100 of FIG. 21 and a second picture 2200 of FIG. 22 may each be split into a plurality of largest coding units. Square blocks marked by dotted lines are largest coding units. Tiles are rectangular areas marked by thin solid lines within the first picture 2100 and the second picture 2200, and each of the tiles includes one or more largest coding units. Rectangular areas marked by thick solid lines within the first picture 2100 and the second picture 2200 are slices, and each of the slices includes one or more tiles.” [0236-0237] describes the size of the LCUs and the number of tiles and slices in the pictures of FIGS. 21 and 22, respectively. LCUs are then split into smaller coding units (CU) according to FIG. 9 based on size);
deriving a split method of the image based on the derived size of the processing unit ([0234], “FIGS. 21 and 22 illustrate relationships between largest coding units, tiles, and slices in a tile partitioning method.” [0057], “The picture may be split into one or more tile rows and may be split into one or more tile columns, the tile may be a rectangular area including one or more largest coding units into which the pictures are split, the tile may be included in one or more tile rows and may be included in one or more tile columns, and the decoding of the one or more tiles may include decoding largest coding units included in the one or more tiles.” Note, the number of tiles and slices is dependent on the size of the picture and LCUs, and CU splits directions are based on size according to FIG. 9 and [0215]);
deriving split information of the image based on the split method (FIGS. 24 and 28-34 describe tile identifiers, slice identifiers, and LCU identifiers. FIGS. 12-15 disclose the processing order of the split CUs and their associated depths); and
connecting and reconstructing the processing unit of the image based on the derived split information of the image ([0246], “The decoder 1720 according to an embodiment may reconstruct a tile including one or more largest coding units by reconstructing the blocks included in a largest coding unit. The decoder 1720 may reconstruct a slice including one or more tiles and may reconstruct a picture including one or more slices.” Note, “connecting and reconstructing” is interpreted as reproducing an output image from the split processing units),
wherein the split information of the image includes location information of the processing unit (FIGS. 24 and 28-34 describe tile identifiers, slice identifiers, and LCU identifiers. FIGS. 12-15 disclose the processing order of the split CUs and their associated depths. Note, the identifiers provide location within the picture).
Choi fails to expressly disclose available resources and a peak memory of a decoder.
However, Esenlik teaches available resources and a peak memory of a decoder ([0009], “the picture reconstruction may be performed with a lower required memory.” [0270], “the amount of necessary memory is proportional to the maximum allowed block size.” [0480], “available memory.” [0500], “reducing in required peak memory.” [0501], “The memory requirement and the computational complexity are proportional to the number of samples to be processed.” [0320], “determined by the decoder according to memory limitation.” [0324], “solves the problem of total peak memory by dividing the input space into multiple smaller independently processing regions”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have split an image into processing units based on available resources and a peak memory, as taught by Esenlik ([0500-0501]), in Choi’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Choi’s invention, by incorporating Esenlik’s invention, to improve compression ratio with little to no sacrifice in picture quality (Esenlik: [0004]).
Regarding claim 2, Choi and Esenlik discloses every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Choi discloses wherein the connecting and reconstructing of the processing unit of the image includes determining a location of the processing unit in the image based on the split information of the image (FIGS. 24 and 28-34 describe tile identifiers, slice identifiers, and LCU identifiers. FIGS. 12-15 disclose the processing order of the split CUs and their associated depths. [0231], “The decoder 1720 may determine a location of a slice, based on information obtained from the syntax element obtainer 1710, determine a location of a tile included in the slice, and determine a location of a current block included in the tile. The current block is a block generated when an image is split according to a tree structure, and for example, may correspond to a largest coding unit, a coding unit, or a transform unit. The decoder 1720 may decode the one or more tiles included in the current slice according to an encoding order. To this end, the decoder 1720 may decode one or more blocks included in a current tile”).
Regarding claim 3, Choi and Esenlik discloses every limitation of claim 2, as outlined above. Additionally, Choi discloses wherein the location of the processing unit is determined based on a location index of the processing unit (FIGS. 24 and 28-34 describe tile identifiers, slice identifiers, and LCU identifiers. FIGS. 12-15 disclose the processing order of the split CUs and their associated depths. [0231], “The decoder 1720 may determine a location of a slice, based on information obtained from the syntax element obtainer 1710, determine a location of a tile included in the slice, and determine a location of a current block included in the tile. The current block is a block generated when an image is split according to a tree structure, and for example, may correspond to a largest coding unit, a coding unit, or a transform unit. The decoder 1720 may decode the one or more tiles included in the current slice according to an encoding order. To this end, the decoder 1720 may decode one or more blocks included in a current tile.” See syntax in FIGS. 35-37, 39, and 40).
Regarding claim 4, Choi and Esenlik discloses every limitation of claim 3, as outlined above. Additionally, Choi discloses wherein the location index includes a width index and a height index ([0283], “obtain information about the width of a tile column and information about the height of a tile row from among the tiles into which the picture is split.” [0284], “video decoding apparatus 1700 may obtain information about the number of tile columns included in the picture in a horizontal direction and information about the number of tile rows included in the picture in a vertical direction. The information about the width of each tile column may be obtained based on the number of tile columns in a horizontal direction, and the information about the height of each tile row may be obtained based on the number of tile rows in a vertical direction.” Note, all of the LCUs and subsequently the CUs are located within the tile for which the location index identifies).
Regarding claim 5, Choi and Esenlik discloses every limitation of claim 3, as outlined above. Additionally, Choi discloses wherein the location index is derived based on boundary location information on a row and boundary location information on a column (FIG. 37 describes the number of tiles in a group for columns and rows, i.e., NumTileRowsInTileGroup and NumTilesColumnsTileGroup, which identify their position and therefore boundary of the picture. FIG. 37 further includes tile IDs for top left and bottom right tiles).
Regarding claim 6, Choi and Esenlik discloses every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Choi discloses wherein the location information of the processing unit includes boundary location information on a row and boundary location information on a column (FIG. 37 describes the number of tiles in a group for columns and rows, i.e., NumTileRowsInTileGroup and NumTilesColumnsTileGroup, which identify their position and therefore boundary of the picture. FIG. 37 further includes tile IDs for top left and bottom right tiles. Note, all of the LCUs and subsequently the CUs are located within the tile for which the location index identifies).
Regarding claim 7, Choi and Esenlik discloses every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Choi discloses wherein the size of the processing unit is derived based on the number of width splits and the number of height splits of the image ([0283], “obtain information about the width of a tile column and information about the height of a tile row from among the tiles into which the picture is split.” [0284], “video decoding apparatus 1700 may obtain information about the number of tile columns included in the picture in a horizontal direction and information about the number of tile rows included in the picture in a vertical direction. The information about the width of each tile column may be obtained based on the number of tile columns in a horizontal direction, and the information about the height of each tile row may be obtained based on the number of tile rows in a vertical direction.” Note, all of the LCUs and subsequently the CUs are located within the tile for which the location index identifies; furthermore, the tile size determines the size of the LCU and subsequently the CUs).
Regarding claim 8, Choi and Esenlik discloses every limitation of claim 7, as outlined above. Additionally, Choi discloses wherein the number of width splits and the number of height splits of the image are acquired from a bitstream ([0278], “the syntax element obtainer 1710 according to an embodiment may obtain, from a bitstream.” [0283], “obtain information about the width of a tile column and information about the height of a tile row from among the tiles into which the picture is split.” [0284], “video decoding apparatus 1700 may obtain information about the number of tile columns included in the picture in a horizontal direction and information about the number of tile rows included in the picture in a vertical direction. The information about the width of each tile column may be obtained based on the number of tile columns in a horizontal direction, and the information about the height of each tile row may be obtained based on the number of tile rows in a vertical direction.” Note, all of the LCUs and subsequently the CUs are located within the tile for which the location index identifies).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0078451 A1 (hereinafter “Choi”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0336784 A1 (hereinafter “Esenlik”), and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0046994 A1 (hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 9, Choi and Esenlik disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Choi and Esenlik fail to expressly disclose wherein the size of the processing unit is derived additionally based on a size of a maximum processing unit included in profile, tier, and level information.
However, Zhang teaches wherein the size of the processing unit is derived additionally based on a size of a maximum processing unit included in profile, tier, and level information ([0607-0628] disclose the limitations on dimensions of tiles and slices, including how the tile and slice information is provided in terms of CTB specified in profiles, levels, and tiers).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have use profile, tier, and level information, as taught by Zhang ([0607-0628]), in Choi and Esenlik’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Choi and Esenlik’s invention, by incorporating Zhang’s invention, because it is an obvious use of a known technique to use frame limitations signaled in a profile/tier/level to improve similar decoding methods in the same way (see MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
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) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2022/0078451 A1 (hereinafter “Choi”).
Regarding claim 10, the limitations are the same as those disclosed by Choi in claim 1. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations are the same as those disclosed by Choi in claim 3. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 3 applies equally as well to claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations are the same as those disclosed by Choi in claim 4. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 4 applies equally as well to claim 12.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2020/0382799 A1 (hereinafter “Chernyak”).
Regarding claim 13, Chernyak discloses a bitstream transmitting method comprising transmitting a bitstream generated by an image encoding method […] ([0136], “The encoded bitstream 21 may be transmitted to video decoder 30, or stored in a memory for later transmission or retrieval by video decoder 30.” Note, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, as per the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection above, is the particularities of how the image encoding method do not give “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps” of transmitting the bitstream. That is to say, the step of transmitting the bitstream is capable of transmitting any bitstream irrespective of how it was generated and furthermore, the image encoding method does not generate a bitstream in view of the size of a processing unit, the split method, or the split information).
Regarding claim 14, Chernyak discloses a computer readable recording medium in which the bitstream generated by the image encoding method of claim 10 is recorded (Claim 14’s recitation of “a computer readable recording medium in which the bitstream generated by the image encoding method” is a product-by-process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP § 2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the recording medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes generating the bitstream conforming to a format rule manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. 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 recording medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 14 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and recording medium. Therefore, the bitstream structure, 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 recording medium storing data and is anticipated by Chernyak which recites: [0136], “The encoded bitstream 21 may be transmitted to video decoder 30, or stored in a memory for later transmission or retrieval by video decoder 30”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Publication No. 2018/0027247 A1 (hereinafter “Lee”) – Lee discloses splitting a block into tiles, slices, and LCUs having predetermined sizes. See Lee, FIG. 5A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-0677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 AM - 5PM EST.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/STUART D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights