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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-13 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/25/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: “subbloks” should be “subblocks” [Claim 1, Line 7; Claim 9, Line 7; Claim 13, Line 11]. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 9, 10, and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 8, 9, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,401,832 in view of CHERNYAK et al. (Hereafter, “Chernyak”) [US 2021/0385450 A1]. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they cover mutually associated subject matter. Thus, a terminal disclaimer is required. An analysis of the claims can be seen in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Instant Application No. 19/281,056 vs. U.S. Patent No. 12,401,832
Instant Application No. 19/281,056 Claims (Difference Emphasis Added)
U.S. Patent No. 12,401,832 Claims (Difference Emphasis Added)
1. A method of applying intra sub-partitions (ISP) to a chroma block of a current block, performed by a video decoding apparatus, the method comprising: obtaining chroma ISP information related to applying the intra sub-partitions to the chroma block; partitioning the chroma block into a plurality of subblocks using the chroma ISP information; and reconstructing the chroma block in units of the subbloks.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the chroma ISP information includes at least one of a chroma sub-block split application flag or a chroma sub-block split direction flag, and wherein the chroma sub-block split application flag is a flag indicating whether or not the chroma block is sub-split, and the chroma sub-block split direction flag is a flag indicating a sub-split direction of the chroma block.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the chroma ISP information comprises: decoding the chroma ISP information from the bitstream.
1. A method of applying intra sub-partitions (ISP) to a chroma block of a current block, performed by a video decoding apparatus, the method comprising: decoding a chroma format, a chroma ISP enabled flag, and a tree type from a bitstream, wherein the chroma format indicates relative resolution of a chroma channel with respect to a luma channel of the current block, the chroma ISP enabled flag is a flag indicating whether or not the ISP is available for the chroma block, and the tree type indicates a tree split structure for decoding of the current block; decoding chroma ISP information of the chroma block from the bitstream according to the tree type, the chroma format, and the chroma ISP enabled flag, wherein the chroma ISP information includes a chroma sub-block split application flag and a chroma sub-block split direction flag; decoding sub-blocks into which the chroma block has been sub-split from the bitstream using the chroma ISP information; and inversely transforming the sub-blocks.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the chroma sub-block split application flag is a flag indicating whether or not the chroma block is sub-split, and wherein the chroma sub-block split direction flag is a flag indicating a sub-split direction of the chroma block.
Claim 9 is the same as claim 1 but in encoding form.
Claim 8 is the same as claim 1 but in encoding form.
Claim 10 is the same as claim 2 but in encoding form.
Claim 9 is the same as claim 2 but in encoding form.
Claim 13 is the same as claim 9 but in method for transmitting/providing form.
Claim 13 is the same as claim 9 but in method for transmitting/providing form.
Some of the differences in the claim limitations in the U.S. Patent are narrower than the instant application, and thus it would have been obvious to make the claim limitations in the instant application broader by removing the specific language found in the U.S. Patent.
The U.S. Patent fails to explicitly disclose applying the intra sub-partitions to the chroma block; partitioning the chroma block into a plurality of subblocks using the chroma ISP information; and reconstructing the chroma block in units of the subbloks.
Chernyak discloses applying the intra sub-partitions to the chroma block ([0008] chroma format information [0284] the bitstream includes information of chroma format [0204] In the Table, the condition ChromaArrayType==3 checks whether current chroma format is 4:4:4. In positive case, two chroma cbf flags are forced to be signaled when ISP is used (IntraSubPartitionsSplitType !=ISP_NO_SPLIT). [0206] At operation 901, the decoding apparatus obtains information of ISP. As described above, the decoding apparatus may parse a bitstream received from an encoding apparatus. The bitstream includes information to indicate ISP, for example, intra_subpartitions_split_flag and/or intra_subpartitions_mode_flag. [0266] determining a chroma transform unit (TU) of a block coded by Intra Sub-Partitions (ISP) coding mode [0297] Embodiment 19. The method of any one of Embodiments 15-18, wherein the chroma TU is coded by Intra Sub-Partitions (ISP) coding mode. The decoding apparatus then obtains information of ISP, for example, IntraSubPartitionsSplitType, based on intra_subpartitions_split_flag and/or intra_subpartitions_mode_flag. [0297] Embodiment 19. The method of any one of Embodiments 15-18, wherein the chroma TU is coded by Intra Sub-Partitions (ISP) coding mode. [0298] Embodiment 20. The method of Embodiment 19, wherein the size of the chroma transform unit is determined according to following table: TABLE-US-00007 if(ChromaArrayType != 3 && (IntraSubPartitionsSplitType != ISP_NO_SPLIT && treeType = = SINGLE_TREE && subTuIndex = = NumIntraSubPartitions − 1 )){ wC = CbWidth[ x0 ][ y0 ] / Sub WidthC hC = CbHeight[ x0 ][ y0 ] / SubHeightC } else wC = tbWidth / Sub WidthC hC = tbHeight / SubHeightC.); partitioning the chroma block into a plurality of subblocks using the chroma ISP information ([0203] In a second embodiment, the ISP technology performs sub partitioning for chroma blocks aligned with luma blocks sub-partitioning, when 4:4:4 subsampling is used in the bitstream.); and reconstructing the chroma block in units of the subbloks ([0138] reconstruction unit 314).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the invention with the different embodiments of the ISP coding of the chroma blocks of Chernyak in order to provide an accurate and versatile way to determine a size of a chroma transform block (TB) of the coding unit for the ISP [See Chernyak].
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHERNYAK et al. (Hereafter, “Chernyak”) [US 2021/0385450 A1].
In regards to claim 1, Chernyak discloses a method of applying intra sub-partitions (ISP) to a chroma block of a current block, performed by a video decoding apparatus ([Abstract] Apparatuses and methods for Intra Sub-Partitions (ISP).), the method comprising: obtaining chroma ISP information related to applying the intra sub-partitions to the chroma block ([0008] chroma format information [0284] the bitstream includes information of chroma format [0204] In the Table, the condition ChromaArrayType==3 checks whether current chroma format is 4:4:4. In positive case, two chroma cbf flags are forced to be signaled when ISP is used (IntraSubPartitionsSplitType !=ISP_NO_SPLIT). [0206] At operation 901, the decoding apparatus obtains information of ISP. As described above, the decoding apparatus may parse a bitstream received from an encoding apparatus. The bitstream includes information to indicate ISP, for example, intra_subpartitions_split_flag and/or intra_subpartitions_mode_flag. [0266] determining a chroma transform unit (TU) of a block coded by Intra Sub-Partitions (ISP) coding mode [0297] Embodiment 19. The method of any one of Embodiments 15-18, wherein the chroma TU is coded by Intra Sub-Partitions (ISP) coding mode. The decoding apparatus then obtains information of ISP, for example, IntraSubPartitionsSplitType, based on intra_subpartitions_split_flag and/or intra_subpartitions_mode_flag. [0297] Embodiment 19. The method of any one of Embodiments 15-18, wherein the chroma TU is coded by Intra Sub-Partitions (ISP) coding mode. [0298] Embodiment 20. The method of Embodiment 19, wherein the size of the chroma transform unit is determined according to following table: TABLE-US-00007 if(ChromaArrayType != 3 && (IntraSubPartitionsSplitType != ISP_NO_SPLIT && treeType = = SINGLE_TREE && subTuIndex = = NumIntraSubPartitions − 1 )){ wC = CbWidth[ x0 ][ y0 ] / Sub WidthC hC = CbHeight[ x0 ][ y0 ] / SubHeightC } else wC = tbWidth / Sub WidthC hC = tbHeight / SubHeightC.); partitioning the chroma block into a plurality of subblocks using the chroma ISP information ([0203] In a second embodiment, the ISP technology performs sub partitioning for chroma blocks aligned with luma blocks sub-partitioning, when 4:4:4 subsampling is used in the bitstream.); and reconstructing the chroma block in units of the subbloks ([0138] reconstruction unit 314).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the different embodiments of the ISP coding of the chroma blocks of Chernyak in order to provide an accurate and versatile way to determine a size of a chroma transform block (TB) of the coding unit for the ISP [See Chernyak].
In regards to claim 3, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Chernyak discloses wherein obtaining the chroma ISP information comprises: decoding the chroma ISP information from the bitstream ([0206] The decoding apparatus then obtains information of ISP, for example, IntraSubPartitionsSplitType, based on intra_subpartitions_split_flag and/or intra_subpartitions_mode_flag. [0284] the bitstream includes information of chroma format [0297] Embodiment 19. The method of any one of Embodiments 15-18, wherein the chroma TU is coded by Intra Sub-Partitions (ISP) coding mode.).
In regards to claim 4, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Chernyak discloses wherein obtaining the chroma ISP information comprises: decoding, from the bitstream, luma ISP information of a luma block corresponding to the chroma block ([0008] obtaining information of Intra Sub-Partitions (ISP), wherein the information of ISP indicates whether ISP is used for splitting a luma coding block of a coding unit); and setting the luma ISP information as the chroma ISP information ([0008] determining a size of a chroma transform block (TB) of the coding unit based on SubWidthC and SubHeightC when at least a first condition is fulfilled. SubWidthC and SubHeightC are variables depending on chroma format information. The chroma format information indicates a chroma format of a picture the coding unit belongs to, and the chroma format includes at least one of: 4:2:0, or 4:2:2, or 4:4:4. The first condition comprises: 1) a single tree is used to partition the coding unit, and 2) the information of ISP indicates that ISP is used for splitting the luma coding block. [0204] In the Table, the condition ChromaArrayType==3 checks whether current chroma format is 4:4:4. In positive case, two chroma cbf flags are forced to be signaled when ISP is used (IntraSubPartitionsSplitType !=ISP_NO_SPLIT).).
In regards to claim 5, the limitations of claim 4 have been addressed. Chernyak discloses wherein the luma ISP information includes a luma sub- block split application flag and a luma sub-block split direction flag, and wherein the luma sub-block split application flag is a flag indicating whether or not the luma block is sub-split, and the luma sub-block split direction flag is a flag indicating a sub-split direction of the luma block ([0199] The variable IntraSubPartitionsSplitType specifies the type of split used for the current luma coding block as illustrated in Table 3. IntraSubPartitionsSplitType is derived as follows: [0200] If intra_subpartitions_mode_flag[x0][y0] is equal to 0, IntraSubPartitionsSplitType is set equal to 0. [0201] Otherwise, the IntraSubPartitionsSplitType is set equal to 1+intra_subpartitions_split_flag[x0][y0]. TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Name association to IntraSubPartitionsSplitType IntraSubPartitonsSplitType Name of IntraSubPartitionsSplitType 0 ISP_NO_SPLIT 1 ISP_HOR_SPLIT 2 ISP_VER_SPLIT).
In regards to claim 6, the limitations of claim 4 have been addressed. Chernyak discloses wherein obtaining the chroma ISP information comprises: using the luma ISP information as the chroma ISP information when an intra prediction mode of the current block is included in preset prediction modes ([0008] determining a size of a chroma transform block (TB) of the coding unit based on SubWidthC and SubHeightC when at least a first condition is fulfilled. SubWidthC and SubHeightC are variables depending on chroma format information. The chroma format information indicates a chroma format of a picture the coding unit belongs to, and the chroma format includes at least one of: 4:2:0, or 4:2:2, or 4:4:4. The first condition comprises: 1) a single tree is used to partition the coding unit, and 2) the information of ISP indicates that ISP is used for splitting the luma coding block. [0204] In the Table, the condition ChromaArrayType==3 checks whether current chroma format is 4:4:4. In positive case, two chroma cbf flags are forced to be signaled when ISP is used (IntraSubPartitionsSplitType !=ISP_NO_SPLIT).).
In regards to claim 7, the limitations of claim 4 have been addressed. Chernyak discloses wherein obtaining the chroma ISP information comprises: using the luma ISP information as the chroma ISP information when a size or shape of the chroma block satisfies one of preset conditions ([0008] determining a size of a chroma transform block (TB) of the coding unit based on SubWidthC and SubHeightC when at least a first condition is fulfilled. SubWidthC and SubHeightC are variables depending on chroma format information. The chroma format information indicates a chroma format of a picture the coding unit belongs to, and the chroma format includes at least one of: 4:2:0, or 4:2:2, or 4:4:4. The first condition comprises: 1) a single tree is used to partition the coding unit, and 2) the information of ISP indicates that ISP is used for splitting the luma coding block. [0204] In the Table, the condition ChromaArrayType==3 checks whether current chroma format is 4:4:4. In positive case, two chroma cbf flags are forced to be signaled when ISP is used (IntraSubPartitionsSplitType !=ISP_NO_SPLIT).).
In regards to claim 8, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Chernyak discloses wherein obtaining the chroma ISP information comprises: deriving the chroma ISP information by referring to a split structure of a luma region corresponding to the chroma block ([0008] The first condition comprises: 1) a single tree is used to partition the coding unit, and 2) the information of ISP indicates that ISP is used for splitting the luma coding block.), a prediction mode distribution, or information of a neighboring luma region.
Claim 9 lists all the same elements of claim 1, but in encoding method form rather than decoding method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 9.
Claim 11 lists all the same elements of claim 4, but in encoding method form rather than decoding method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 4 applies equally as well to claim 11.
Claim 12 lists all the same elements of claim 5, but in encoding method form rather than decoding method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 5 applies equally as well to claim 12.
Claim 13 is substantially the same as claim 9 and is thus rejected for reasons similar to those in rejecting claim 9. Furthermore regarding claim 13, Chernyak discloses a method for providing video data to a video decoding device [Fig. 1A], the method comprising: encoding the video data into a bitstream by applying intra sub-partitions (ISP) to a chroma block of a current block ([0011] The encoding unit 1202, configured to encode a bitstream, wherein the bitstream includes information to indicate that ISP is used for splitting the luma coding block of the coding unit. [0127] The encoded picture data or bitstream comprises information for decoding the encoded picture data, e.g. data that represents picture blocks of an encoded video slice (and/or tile groups or tiles) and associated syntax elements. [0284] the bitstream includes information of chroma format [0204] In the Table, the condition ChromaArrayType==3 checks whether current chroma format is 4:4:4. In positive case, two chroma cbf flags are forced to be signaled when ISP is used (IntraSubPartitionsSplitType !=ISP_NO_SPLIT). [0206] At operation 901, the decoding apparatus obtains information of ISP. As described above, the decoding apparatus may parse a bitstream received from an encoding apparatus. The bitstream includes information to indicate ISP, for example, intra_subpartitions_split_flag and/or intra_subpartitions_mode_flag.); and transmitting the bitstream to the video decoding device ([0125] encoded bitstream 21 may be transmitted to video decoder 30).
Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernyak in view of KO et al. (Hereafter, “Ko”) [US 2024/0283910 A1].
In regards to claim 2, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Chernyak fails to explicitly disclose wherein the chroma ISP information includes at least one of a chroma sub-block split application flag or a chroma sub-block split direction flag, and wherein the chroma sub-block split application flag is a flag indicating whether or not the chroma block is sub-split, and the chroma sub-block split direction flag is a flag indicating a sub-split direction of the chroma block.
Ko discloses wherein the chroma ISP information includes at least one of a chroma sub-block split application flag or a chroma sub-block split direction flag, and wherein the chroma sub-block split application flag is a flag indicating whether or not the chroma block is sub-split, and the chroma sub-block split direction flag is a flag indicating a sub-split direction of the chroma block ([0309] Referring to Table 4, an intra-prediction and ISP-related syntax may be signaled through a coding unit syntax. In Table 4, an inter prediction-related syntax may be omitted from the coding unit syntax structure. In Table 4, intra_subpartitions_mode_flag may be signaling (or a syntax element) indicating whether to use (or apply) ISP. If intra_subpartitions_mode_flag is 1, this may indicate that ISP is used. That is, if intra_subpartitions_mode_flag is 1, this may indicate that a current block is split into sub partitions so as to be transformed and reconstructed. [0313] According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the encoder/decoder may determine whether to perform sub-partitioning and the split direction of the sub-partitioning on the basis of an ISP mode flag (i.e., intra_subpartitions_mode_flag) and an ISP split flag (i.e., intra_subpartitions_split_flag). That is, as described above with reference to Table 4, intra_subpartitions_split_flag may exist. In addition, the split direction may be determined on the basis of intra_subpartitions_split_flag. In addition, whether to perform splitting and the split direction may be determined on the basis of intra_subpartitions_split_flag and intra_subpartitions_mode_flag. Table 5 below is a table showing an example of an ISP split type. [0340] According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the tree type may indicate a block partitioning relation between the luma component and the chroma component or indicate which component for which processing is performed currently. [0366] According to an additional embodiment of the present disclosure, a procedure of configuring 1 as the number of sub partitions with respect to the chroma component may be added. Alternatively, a procedure of configuring an ISP split type for the chroma component to be ISP_NO_SPLIT may be added. Referring to Table 8 to Table 10, the number of sub partitions or an ISP split type is used for the chroma component as well as the luma component, and there may not exist an independent parameter for each color component. Therefore, this is because, in a case of SINGLE_TREE, if ISP is used for the luma component, sub-partitioning may be performed for the chroma component by using the number of sub partitions or an ISP split type value of a case where ISP is used. [0367] According to another embodiment, the number of sub partitions or an ISP split type value may separately exist for the chroma component.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Chernyak‘s application of ISP to chroma components with the signalling of an ISP mode flag and an ISP split flag as taught by Ko in order to increase coding efficiency of a video signal [See Ko].
Claim 10 lists all the same elements of claim 2, but in encoding method form rather than decoding method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 10.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kaitlin A Retallick whose telephone number is (571)270-3841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Chris 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.
/KAITLIN A RETALLICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights