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 .
Priority
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/526,169, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Namely, above said provisional application generally provides support limited to the present independent claims, and fails to provide support for the implementation details set forth in the dependent claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the ROI and CTB with partitioning in the context of pictures as recited must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the ROI and CTB with partitioning in the context of pictures as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(b) because they are incomplete. 37 CFR 1.83(b) reads as follows:
When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The written description is confusing, and when applied to the claims, borders on the incomprehensible, rendering claim scope unclear, particularly in light of the clarity issues of the claims set forth below. For example, the description seems to define IBC, which is a form of intra prediction, as inter prediction, rendering the distinction between block vectors and motion vectors in the claims unclear. Such issues are persistent throughout the written description.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors, or to be self-referential AI constructs.
Namely, the claims are wholly non-sensical and unclear such that they are indefinite. For example, in claim 1 alone, the first feature recites determine a first region of interest (ROI) in a first reference picture of a current coding tree block (CTB) that is in a current picture; which begs many questions including: how can a CTB subsume the picture in which it resides?; how can the reference picture be in a CTB that is in a current picture?; is the reference picture the current picture?; is the ROI the CTB? And still further in regard to the other recited features such that the entire claim set must be completely re-written to attempt to achieve any sort of clarity.
In regard to the above, for purposes of examination, the above feature will be interpreted as a picture with a ROI and CTB partitioning.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu (US 2015/0195526).
Regarding independent claim 1, Zhu discloses an apparatus for video decoding, comprising: processing circuitry (Figure 6, processing circuitry schematic of decoding apparatus) configured to: determine a first region of interest (ROI) in a first reference picture of a current coding tree block (CTB) that is in a current picture; (paragraphs 0061/0062, tile or other partition of picture/frame is ROI; partition of frame per coding tree CTB) determine a subset of allowable partition decisions from a set of partition decisions of the current CTB based at least on first partitioning structures of the first ROI in the first reference picture; and partition the current CTB based on the subset of allowable partition decisions. (partition of CTB per HEVC standard coding tree into CUs/CBs/PUs of tile or other defined region)
To further make clear the partition structure of a CTB in the HEVC standard, Zhang (US 2024/0333978) is here cited in regard to providing the state of the art in regard to CTB partitioning structure before the effective filing date of the instant application, and makes clear that per the HEVC standard, a CTB is partitioned into CUs/CBs/PUs of tile or other defined region as is well known. That is to say, claim 1 seems to attempt to claim the known HEVC standard per se.
Independent claims 13 and 20 are method and computer program product claims, respectively, reciting features similar to claim 1, and are therefore also disclosed by Zhu for reasons similar to claim 1 above.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Zhu discloses wherein the first ROI in the first reference picture is indicated by one of a motion vector and a block vector of a previously reconstructed neighboring CTB of the current CTB, the previously reconstructed neighboring CTB being in the current picture. (paragraph 0064, shown Figure 7, block vector between neighboring block of CTB and current block of CTB in same picture)
Regarding dependent claim 3, Zhu discloses wherein the first reference picture is the current picture. (paragraph 0061, reference picture of ROI is current picture of CTB)
Regarding dependent claim 4, Zhu discloses wherein the one of the motion vector and the block vector is the motion vector, and the first reference picture is different from the current picture. (paragraph 0065, inter prediction across frames/pictures, and vector is motion vector)
Regarding dependent claim 5, Zhu discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the subset of allowable partition decisions from the set of partition decisions of the current CTB based on at least (i) the first partitioning structures of the first ROI in the first reference picture and (ii) second partitioning structures of a second ROI in a second reference picture of the current CTB. (paragraph 0066, inter or intra can be applied to picture for CTB partitioning of ROI for current picture or sequence of pictures)
Regarding dependent claim 6, Zhu discloses wherein the one of the motion vector and the block vector is the motion vector; the first reference picture of the current CTB is different from a reference picture of the previously reconstructed neighboring CTB; and the processing circuitry is configured to scale the motion vector based on a temporal distance associated with the first reference picture and a temporal distance associated with the reference picture of the previously reconstructed neighboring CTB. (paragraph 0065, inter coded across pictures with motion vector, with frames in a defined temporal direction and spacing)
Regarding dependent claim 7, Zhu discloses wherein a picture level quantization parameter (QP) associated with the first reference picture satisfies a pre-defined condition. (paragraph 0066, QP set for picture)
Regarding dependent claim 8, Zhu discloses wherein a dual tree partitioning is applied to the first reference picture; when the first partitioning structures of the first ROI include luma partitioning structures of a luma component in the first ROI, the processing circuitry is configured to determine the subset of allowable partition decisions from the set of partition decisions of the current CTB based on the luma partitioning structures of the first ROI; and when the first partitioning structures of the first ROI include the luma partitioning structures of the luma component in the first ROI and chroma partitioning structures of a chroma component in the first ROI, the processing circuitry is configured to determine the subset of allowable partition decisions from the set of partition decisions of the current CTB based on the luma partitioning structures and the chroma partitioning structures of the first ROI. (paragraph 0062, dual tree separate chroma and luma coding partitions for CTB in ROI)
Regarding dependent claim 10, Zhu discloses determine the subset of allowable partition decisions from the set of partition decisions of the current CTB based on: the first partitioning structures of the first ROI in the first reference picture and residuals associated with the first reference picture, or the first partitioning structures of the first ROI in the first reference picture and at least one of (i) a quantization parameter (QP) associated with the first reference picture and a QP associated with the current picture, or the first partitioning structures of the first ROI in the first reference picture and a temporal distance between the first reference picture and the current picture. (paragraphs 0065/0066, partition structure from claim 1, and QP set for current picture as well as temporal sequence in inter coding which defines temporal distance)
Regarding dependent claim 11, Zhu discloses wherein the current picture is one of an inter coded picture and an intra coded picture. (paragraph 0063, intra or inter coding)
Regarding dependent claim 12, Zhu discloses determine contexts for entropy decoding control flags associated with respective partition decisions of the current CTB based at least on the first partitioning structures of the first ROI; and determine partition decisions of the current CTB based on the control flags. (paragraph 0062/0243, syntax is flags and is used to indicate partition structure of ROI and CTB)
Regarding dependent claims 14-19, claims 14-19 are method claims reciting features similar to claims 2-7, respectively, and are disclosed by Zhu for reasons similar to claims 2-7, respectively.
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) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Zhang (US 2024/0333978).
Regarding claim 9, while Zhu discloses use of tables in coding, Zhu fails to identically disclose the recited; however, Zhang teaches wherein partitioning structures of each region in the first reference picture are stored in a look up table (LUT); (paragraph 0068, index tables of partition information) a size of each region is less than or equal to a maximum allowable block size; (this is unclear and nonsensical because a region cannot be less than the minimum block size of the blocks making up a region, but see Zhu Figure 8) and the processing circuitry is configured to obtain the first partitioning structures of the first ROI from the LUT. (again, paragraph 0068, using index tables of partition information)
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art use tables to store partition information as recited because such was known and used in CABAC/H.264/AVC/HEVC standards or protocols before the effective filing date of the instant application. (Zhang, paragraphs 0068-0070)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wang (US 2023/0081842) provides partitioning implementation details.
Gao (US 2021/0006786) provides partitioning implementation details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER whose telephone number is (303)297-4401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-6 MT.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571 272 2988. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER/Examiner, Art Unit 2485
/JAYANTI K PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2485
August 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights