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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van der Auwera et al. (US 2012/0287994) in view of Karczewicz et al. (US 2013/0022107).
Regarding claim 1 Van der Auwera discloses a method comprising:
determining that directionalities of one or more splits within a first region of a frame of video content, one or more splits within a second region of the frame, and a border region corresponding to a split between the first region and the second region share a common directionality (determine a value of an SDIP direction flag for sub-CU 192B, when "true", it indicates that the SDIP partitions are vertical; for each of SDIP PU partitions 194A-194D, the video coding device may determine a value of a respective SDIP mode flag that indicates whether the corresponding SDIP PU partition is split into further partitions. In this example, SDIP mode flags for SDIP PU partitions 194A, 194C, and 194D may have values (e.g., "false") indicating that these SDIP PU partitions are not split into further SDIP PUs, while SDIP PU partition 194B may have a value (e.g., "true") indicating that SDIP PU partition 194B is split into further SDIP PU partitions 196A-196D – [0144]).
However, fails to explicitly disclose deblock filtering, based on the determining that the directionalities of the one or more splits within the first region, the one or more splits within the second region, and the border region share the common directionality, the border region.
In her disclosure Karczewicz teaches deblock filtering, based on the determining that the directionalities of the one or more splits within the first region, the one or more splits within the second region, and the border region share the common directionality, the border region (deblock filtering boundary 252I based on vertical split in block P and based on vertical split in block Q – [0143-0144]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Karczewicz into the teachings of Van der Auwera because such incorporation improves deblocking decisions and deblocking functions applied to edges that occur between blocks of video data (par. 5).
Regarding claim 2 Van der Auwera discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the common directionality comprises one of a vertical direction or a horizontal direction (determine a value of an SDIP direction flag for sub-CU 192B, when "true", it indicates that the SDIP partitions are vertical – [0144]).
Regarding claim 3 Van de Auwera discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more splits within the first region and the one or more splits within the second region each have a split type comprising at least one of a vertical binary split, a vertical ternary split, a horizontal binary split, or a horizontal ternary split (Figures 7A-7I show examples of vertical binary split, horizontal binary split, vertical ternary split, and horizontal ternary split).
Regarding claim 4 Van der Auwera discloses the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of: the one or more splits within the first region comprise binary splits and the one or more splits within the second region comprise ternary splits, or the one or more splits within the first region comprise ternary splits and the one or more splits within the second region comprise binary splits (Figures 7A-7I).
Regarding claim 5 Van der Auwera discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more splits within the first region comprise all splits within the first region, and the one or more splits within the second region comprise all splits within the second region (Figures 7A-7I).
Regarding claim 6 Van der Auwera discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first region and the second region each comprise a coding unit (CU) (CUs 192a-192D in Figure 8).
Examiner’s note: Figure 8 of Karczewicz’s disclosure show CUs represented by blocks “P” and “Q”.
Regarding claim 7 Van der Auwera discloses the method of claim 6. However, Van der Auwera is silent on the first region and the second region being non-overlapping.
In her disclosure Karczewicz teaches the first region and the second region being non-overlapping (Figure 8 shows non-overlapping CUs).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Karczewicz into the teachings of Van der Auwera because such incorporation improves deblocking decisions and deblocking functions applied to edges that occur between blocks of video data (par. 5).
Claim 8 corresponds to the device that performs the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Claim 9 corresponds to the device that performs the method of claim 2. Therefore, claim 9 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 2.
Claim 10 corresponds to the device that performs the method of claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 3.
Claim 11 corresponds to the device that performs the method of claim 4. Therefore, claim 11 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 4.
Claim 12 corresponds to the device that performs the method of claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 5.
Claim 13 corresponds to the device that performs the method of claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 6.
Claim 14 corresponds to the device that performs the method of claim 7. Therefore, claim 14 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 7.
Regarding claim 15 Van der Auwera discloses the device of claim 8, wherein the one or more splits comprises a split of a coding unit (CU) of the at least the portion of the first frame of the plurality of frames (CU in Figure 8).
Claim 16 corresponds to the system that performs the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 16 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 1. It is noted Van der Auwera discloses an encoder and a filter (video encoder 20 and de-blocker 66 of Figure 2).
Claim 17 corresponds to the system that performs the method of claim 2. Therefore, claim 17 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 2.
Claim 18 corresponds to the system that performs the method of claim 3. Therefore, claim 18 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 3.
Claim 19 corresponds to the system that performs the method of claim 4. Therefore, claim 19 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 4.
Claim 20 corresponds to the system that performs the method of claim 5. Therefore, claim 20 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON whose telephone number is (571)270-1103. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 PM.
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, CHRISTOPHER S KELLEY can be reached at (571)272-7331. 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.
/MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON/Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights