DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claims 1, 7-10, 14, 20-23, 31-40 are rejected as being directed toward patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, under the “Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” issued on January 7, 2019 (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, 50).
The claims are directed to statutory categories of methods, apparata. (under Step 1).
Upon analysis of the present claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation (under Step 2A, prong one), the claims appear to recite a judicial exception, an abstract idea directed to information and mathematical concepts and functions applied to information “partitioning a current block … encoding the current block … encoding at least one syntax element indicating a configuration … transforming prediction residuals … splitting … decoding the current block … decoding at least one syntax element indicating a configuration …” This is consistent with the decision in Ex parte Desjardins, 2024-000567.
Upon consideration of the record (under Step 2A, prong two), Examiner did not find that the additional elements of the present claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that judicial exception “in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.”
The additional elements (“one or more processors and at least one memory coupled to the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform”, when considered individually or in a claim as a whole, do not seem to reflect a substantive improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field under the standards of the present judicial guidance; (using a computer to perform numerical operation does not improve the structure of the computer); do not seem use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (general purpose processing circuitry is not a particular machine); do not seem to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (conversion of a numerical value from one format to another is not a physical transformation).
This is further evidenced in that the additional elements, merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (i.e. obtaining, analyzing, transforming, or outputting information for use with the judicial exception as in CyperSource and Mayo); do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. linked to a computer or other well-established activities in the art such as encoding or decoding data).
The additional claim elements do not change the nature of the abstract idea, as being directed to: information (a current block, a L-shaped partition … at least one syntax element, prediction residuals, transform coefficients), collecting information (obtaining encoded data); outputting information (encoding, decoding, indicating), and/or analyzing information at a high degree of algorithmic generality (partitioning, predicting, transforming, splitting, applying a transform, decoding, encoding). These categories have been identified as abstract ideas by the Federal Circuit as summarized in Electric Power Group, LLC v. ALSTOM SA, 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016):
Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12, 127 S.Ct. 1746, 167 L.Ed.2d 737 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. 1354*1354 v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Commc'ns, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 Fed.Appx. 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589-90, 98 S.Ct. 2522, 57 L.Ed.2d 451 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67, 93 S.Ct. 253, 34 L.Ed.2d 273 (1972). And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Finally, the claimed elements, when considered individually and in combination (under step 2B), do not seem to provide an Inventive Concept that is “significantly more” than the ineligible subject matter. The claims simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception, at a high level of generality (such as comprising one or more processors and at least one memory).
The claims should be amended to include meaningful limitations within the technical field. Examiner suggests limiting the claims to be applied to a practical application such as video compression under the VVC standard.
Claim Construction
Note that, for purposes of compact prosecution, multiple reasons for rejection may be provided for a claim or a part of the claim. The rejection reasons are cumulative, and Applicant should review all the stated reasons as guides to improving the claim language and advancing the prosecution toward an allowance.
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed by a method claim, or by claim language that does not limit an apparatus claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses; (B) “wherein” clauses; and (C) “whereby” clauses. M.P.E.P. 2111.04. Other examples are where the claim passively indicates that a function is performed or a structure is used without requiring that the function or structure is a limitation on the claim itself. The clause may be given some weight to the extent it provides "meaning and purpose” to the claimed invention but not when “it simply expresses the intended result” of the invention. In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, during prosecution, claim language that may or may not be limiting should be considered non-limiting under the standard of the broadest reasonable interpretation. See M.P.E.P. 904.01(a); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1, 7-9, 14, 20-22, 31-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by US 20170244964 to Liu (“Liu”) also cited in an IDS.
Regarding Claim 1: “An encoding method comprising:
partitioning a current block … to be encoded using intra prediction sub-partition (ISP) mode … into at least two partitions, wherein one of the at least two partitions is a L-shaped partition; and (“The coding unit is partitioned into one or more prediction units according to a prediction structure including at least one L-shaped partition in step 1020” Liu, Paragraph 57 and Fig. 10. These partitions can be used in intra prediction as noted in Liu, Tables 2 and 3 and Paragraphs 44-45.)
encoding the current block by encoding each of the at least two partitions with an intra prediction mode associated with the current block.” (“A respective predictor for each prediction unit is generated according to a selected prediction mode for each prediction unit in step 1030. … The coding unit is encoded by incorporating coded information associated with the prediction residuals into a bitstream in step 1050.” Liu, Paragraph 57 and Fig. 10. The selected prediction mode can be an intra prediction mode as noted in Liu, Tables 2 and 3 and Paragraphs 44-45.)
Regarding Claim 7: “The method of claim 1, wherein the prediction of predicting the L-shaped partition is performed over the L-shaped partition only.”
Regarding Claim 8: “The method of claim 1, comprising encoding at least one syntax element indicating a configuration for the L-shaped partitioning partition among top-left, top-right, bottom-left and bottom-right configurations.” (“For example, the prediction structure may comprise four L-shaped partitions and said one quarter-block associated with the four L-shaped partitions corresponds to an upper-left quarter-block, a lower-left quarter-block, an upper-right quarter-block or a lower-right quarter-block. The prediction structure may further comprise 2Nx2N, 2NxN and Nx2N partitions. Four binary strings consisting of a prefix symbol followed by two bits can be used [encoded] to represent the four L-shaped partitions.” Liu, Paragraph 14.)
Regarding Claim 9: “The method of claim 1, wherein the current block to be encoded is partitioned in three partitions, wherein two of the three partitions are L-shaped partitions.” (“According to this embodiment, when L-shape partition is selected for the coding unit, the coding unit is partitioned into one or more prediction units according to a prediction structure including at least one L-shaped partition,” Liu, Paragraph 14. This range includes the example in the claims. Similarly see illustration of this in Zhao, Fig. 9)
Regarding Claim 14: “A decoding method comprising:
obtaining encoded data for a current block to be decoded using intra prediction sub-partition (ISP) mode into at least two partitions, wherein one of the at least two partitions is a L-shaped partition; and (“FIG. 9 illustrates a flowchart of an exemplary decoding system using a prediction unit partition structure including at least one "L-shaped" partition according to an embodiment of the present invention. According to this method, a video bitstream including coded data for a coding unit is received in step 910” Liu, Paragraph 56 and Fig. 9. These partitions can be used in intra prediction as noted in Liu, Tables 2 and 3 and Paragraphs 44-45.)
decoding the current block by decoding each of the at least two partitions from the encoded data with an intra prediction mode associated with the current block.” (“A reconstructed coding unit [current block] can be generated by reconstructing each prediction unit in the coding unit based on the respective predictor and reconstructed prediction residuals of each prediction unit according to the prediction process in step 950.” Liu, Paragraph 56 and Fig. 9. These partitions can be used in intra prediction as noted in Liu, Tables 2 and 3 and Paragraphs 44-45.)
Claims 20-22 are rejected for reasons stated for Claims 7-9 in view of the Claim 14 rejection.
Regarding Claim 31: “The method of claim 1 , wherein lengths of all sides of the L-shaped partition are a power of two.” (“including at least one L-shaped partition, where the coding unit is partitioned into one quarter-block located at one corner of the coding unit and one remaining-block being three times as large as said one quarter-block. … The prediction structure may further comprise 2Nx2N, 2NxN and Nx2N partitions,” all examples of power of two partitioning. See Liu, Paragraph 14 and Fig. 4.)
Regarding Claim 32: “The method of claim 1 , wherein encoding each of the at least two partitions with an intra prediction mode associated with the current block comprises:
predicting the L-shape partition with the intra prediction mode associated with the current block to obtain a L-shape prediction; … encoding and reconstructing the L-shape partition based on the L-shape prediction; … predicting the other partition with the intra prediction mode associated with the current block based on the reconstructed L-shape partition to obtain another partition prediction; and … encoding the other partition based on the another partition prediction.” (“The coding unit is partitioned into one or more prediction units according to a prediction structure including at least one L-shaped partition in step 1020, wherein the coding unit is partitioned into one quarter-block located at one comer of the coding unit and one remaining-block being three times as large as said one quarter-block when said one L-shape partition is selected for the coding unit. A respective predictor for each prediction unit is generated according to a selected prediction mode for each prediction unit in step 1030. … The coding unit is encoded by incorporating coded information associated with the prediction residuals into a bitstream in step 1050.” Further, “A reconstructed coding unit can be generated by reconstructing each prediction unit in the coding unit based on the respective predictor and reconstructed prediction residuals of each prediction unit according to the prediction process in step 950” See Liu, Paragraphs 56-57.)
Claims 33-34 are rejected for reasons stated for Claims 31-32 in view of the claim 14 rejection.
Claim 35, “An encoding apparatus” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, and because prior art teaches: “comprising one or more processors and at least one memory coupled to the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform …” (“The steps shown in the flowchart, as well as other following flowcharts in this disclosure, may be implemented as program codes executable on one or more processors (e.g., one or more CPUs) at the encoder side and/or the decoder side.”
Claims 36-37 are rejected for reasons stated for Claims 31-32 in view of the Claim 35 rejection.
Claim 38, “A decoding apparatus” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 14, and because prior art teaches: “comprising one or more processors and at least one memory coupled to the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform …” (“The steps shown in the flowchart, as well as other following flowcharts in this disclosure, may be implemented as program codes executable on one or more processors (e.g., one or more CPUs) at the encoder side and/or the decoder side.”
Claims 39-40 are rejected for reasons stated for Claims 31-32 in view of the Claim 38 rejection.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This paragraph describes the treatment of admitted prior art. In describing an invention, Applicant must inevitably reference that which is known in the art as the basis for the invention, however it is important that the claims particularly point out and distinctly claim that which Applicant regards to be his own invention. See 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. A statement by an applicant in the specification or made during prosecution identifying prior art is an admission which can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness determinations, regardless of whether the admitted prior art would otherwise qualify as prior art under the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 102. Riverwood Int ’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 1354, 66 USPQ2d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1570, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1063 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The examiner must determine whether the subject matter identified as prior art is applicant’s own work, or the work of another. In the absence of another credible explanation, examiners should treat such subject matter as the work of another. MPEP 2129.
Claims 10, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170244964 to Liu (“Liu”) also cited in an IDS in view of US 20210211660 to Zhao (“Zhao”) also cited in an IDS in view of Applicant admitted prior art described in the Specification (“AAPA”.)
Regarding Claim 10: “The method of claim 1, wherein
encoding the L-shaped partition comprises transforming prediction residuals into transform coefficients, wherein (“The coding unit is partitioned into one or more prediction units according to a prediction structure including at least one L-shaped partition in step 1020, … The coding unit is encoded by incorporating coded information associated with the prediction residuals into a bitstream in step 1050.” Liu, Paragraph 57.
transforming the prediction residuals into transform coefficients comprises: … splitting, in an horizontal direction, the L-shaped partition into a first rectangular block and a second rectangular block, (“For the L-shaped partitions, the transform units are quadtree split into four smaller transform units if the transform unit size is not equal to the coding unit size according to an embodiment. In this case, each prediction unit will contain one or more square transform units without any overlap as shown in FIG. 5B.” Liu, Paragraph 53.)
[splitting, in an horizontal direction, the L-shaped partition into a first rectangular block and a second rectangular block,] the first rectangular block being larger than the second rectangular block; (See Liu, Figs. 6A and 6B and Paragraphs 52-53.)
Liu does not provide an example that applies this specifically to an L-shaped partition.
Zhao teaches this in the context of using L-shaped partitions in video coding: See Zhao, Figs. 11A and 11B and Paragraph 93.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Liu to partition the L-shaped partition into a first rectangular block and a second rectangular block, the first rectangular block being larger than the second rectangular block as taught in Zhao, in order to partition the coding unit into smaller transform units. See Liu, Paragraphs 52-53 and Zhao, Paragraph 38.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
.
applying a first [right] transform on the first rectangular block to obtain a first intermediate block of transform coefficients and applying a second [right] transform on the second rectangular block to obtain a second intermediate block of transform coefficients the first and second intermediate blocks of transform coefficients forming an L-shape block of transform coefficients; (“For the L-shaped partitions, the transform units are quadtree split into four smaller transform units” Liu, Paragraph 53. “The coding process applied to prediction residuals may include transform, quantization and entropy coding. For the transform process, each coding unit is partitioned into one or more transform units and transformation is applied to each transform unit.” Liu, Paragraph 34. See similarly in Zhao, Paragraphs 38, 41.)
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, right and left transforms embody orthogonal transforms used in the VVC. See Specification, Page 23, lines 8-29.
splitting, in a vertical direction, the L-shaped block of transform coefficients into two rectangular blocks; and (See examples in Liu, Figs. 6A and 6B and Paragraphs 52-53 and in Zhao, Figs. 11A and 11B and Paragraph 93. See statement of motivation above.)
applying one [left] transform on each of the two rectangular blocks to obtain an L-shaped block of transform coefficients.” (“For the L-shaped partitions, the transform units are quadtree split into four smaller transform units” Liu, Paragraph 53. “The coding process applied to prediction residuals may include transform, quantization and entropy coding. For the transform process, each coding unit is partitioned into one or more transform units and transformation is applied to each transform unit.” Liu, Paragraph 34. See similarly in Zhao, Paragraphs 38, 41.)
Liu and Zhao do not discuss orthogonal transforms such as “left transform … right transform.” As noted above, the transform units in Liu and Zhao are square or rectangular.
AAPA teaches this in the context of transforms that are used in VVC: “VVC and ECM support rectangular CUs in addition to the square CUs … A right orthogonal transform TMxM is applied (S 1000) on each row of the residual matrix of size NxM to obtain an intermediate data matrix. Then, a left orthogonal transform TuxN is applied (S 1002) on each column of the intermediate matrix to obtain the final transform coefficients matrix.” AAPA, Specification, Page 23, lines 7-15.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Liu and Zhao to perform orthogonal transforms such as right and left transforms, as taught in AAPA, in order to encode a video under the VVC standard. See AAPA, Specification, Page 23, lines 7-15.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularity directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Claim 23 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 10 in view of the Claim 14 rejection, because the decoding steps of Claim 23 exactly reverse the encoding steps of Claim 10, and because prior art teaches that decoding is performed by inverse processes of encoding. See Liu, Paragraphs 54, 56-57. See similarly in AAPA, Specification, Page 23, lines 19-20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210211660 to Zhao (Zhao) is relevant for teaching L-shaped partitions in the context of video encoding.
US 20210392322 Chiang (“Chiang”) relevant for teaching arbitrary partition shapes in the context of video encoding.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights