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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 7 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 recite the limitation “wherein whether to perform the partitioning of the coding unit into the sub-coding units is determined based on a size of the coding unit when the information indicating whether the coding unit is partitioned is not encoded into the bitstream”. The applicant’s originally filed specification fails to disclose this limitation. More explicitly, the applicant’s originally filed specification does not contemplate a situation in which size information for an image block is used for making a determination for partitioning an image block when a bitstream containing information for the image block does not explicitly contain syntax for enabling/disabling block partitioning.
Claims 2-8 are rejected based on their respective dependencies upon claim 1.
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) 1-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al. (Yamamoto) (US 2015/0312588).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a method for processing an image, the method comprising:
obtaining partitioning information based on a bitstream ([0143], split_coding_unit_flag is signaled to indicate splitting of a CU is enabled, [0225], a split_coding_unit_flag is signaled);
partitioning a coding unit into one or more sub-coding units based on the partitioning information ([0142], a coding unit is split into further coding units and [0143], split_coding_unit_flag is used for splitting a CU; [0230], a target coding unit is split into smaller coding units (i.e. sub-coding units));
partitioning a sub-coding unit into one or more prediction units ([0278], FIG. 5, coding units are partitioned into prediction units); and
partitioning the sub-coding unit into one or more transform units ([0153], a coding node (i.e. a CU or PU) is transformed and partitioned into transform units (TU)),
wherein the partitioning information comprises information indicating whether the coding unit is partitioned ([0143], split_coding_unit_flag is signaled to indicate splitting of a CU is enabled, [0225], a split_coding_unit_flag is signaled),
wherein whether to perform the partitioning of the coding unit into the sub-coding units is determined based on a size of the coding unit when the information indicating whether the coding unit is partitioned is not encoded into the bitstream (FIG. 3d, [0156], [0106], [0162], the coding unit partitioning type is signaled using the syntax PartMode to indicate partitioning of a block is performed; [0163], PartMode may specify the size of PUs in a prediction tree (ie. The size of partitioned blocks in a prediction tree)) (please see the 35 USC 112 rejection regarding this limitation above).
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto discloses wherein the partitioning of the sub-coding unit into the prediction units is a type-based partitioning ([0162], [0163], an index PartMode is signaled to indicate a partition type for a PU; FIG. 21 and 22, a PU partition type (2Nx2N or 2NxnU) is determined using type based signaling at depth 0 and a transform tree is generated at depths 1 and 2), and
wherein the partitioning of the sub-coding unit into the transform units is a tree-based partitioning ([0173], the CU is partitioned into TU’s using a transform tree).
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto discloses wherein the partitioning of the sub-coding unit into the prediction units is performed based on at least one of a size of the sub-coding unit ([0163], a partition type for a PU is determined based on the size of the CU) or a prediction mode of the sub-coding unit ([0164], a partition type for a PU is determined based on the prediction mode of the CU).
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto discloses wherein the partitioning information further comprises mode information used for the partitioning of the sub-coding unit into the prediction units ([0164], a partition type for a PU is determined based on the prediction mode of the CU), and
wherein the mode information indicates a partitioning mode among a plurality of predetermined partitioning modes (FIGs. 4 and 5, a partition type is selected and signaled ;[0164], a partition type for a PU is determined based on the prediction mode of the CU).
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto discloses wherein the plurality of predetermined partitioning modes comprises partitioning modes in which the prediction units have different heights or different widths from each other (FIG. 4, partition types c-g).
Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto discloses wherein whether to perform the partitioning of the sub-coding unit into the prediction units is determined based on the mode information when the information indicating whether the coding unit is partitioned is not obtained from the bitstream (FIG. 3d, [0156], [0106], [0162], the coding unit partitioning type is signaled using the syntax PartMode or [0143], a set of flags including split_coding_unit_flag (i.e. information indicating whether the coding unit is partitioned) may be used for partitioning a coding unit; [0160], [0162], a PU partition mode is signaled using the syntax PartMode).
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto discloses wherein the prediction units are not further partitioned (FIG. 5, [0139], [0271], a prediction unit is partitioned until it reaches an allowable depth after which no further partitioning is performed).
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto discloses a method for processing an image, the method comprising:
partitioning a coding unit into one or more sub-coding units ([0142], a coding unit is split into further coding units and [0143], split_coding_unit_flag is used for splitting a CU; [0230], a target coding unit is split into smaller coding units (i.e. sub-coding units));
partitioning a sub-coding unit into one or more prediction units ([0278], FIG. 5, coding units are partitioned into prediction units);
partitioning the sub-coding unit into one or more transform units ([0153], a coding node (i.e. a CU or PU) is transformed and partitioned into transform units (TU)); and
encoding partitioning information comprising information indicating whether the coding unit is partitioned is encoded ([0143], split_coding_unit_flag is signaled to indicate splitting of a CU is enabled, [0225], a split_coding_unit_flag is signaled),
wherein whether to perform the partitioning of the coding unit into the sub-coding units is determined based on a size of the coding unit when the information indicating whether the coding unit is partitioned is not encoded into the bitstream (FIG. 3d, [0156], [0106], [0162], the coding unit partitioning type is signaled using the syntax PartMode to indicate partitioning of a block is performed; [0163], PartMode may specify the size of PUs in a prediction tree (ie. The size of partitioned blocks in a prediction tree)) (please see the 35 USC 112 rejection regarding this limitation above).
Regarding claim 10, the limitations of claim 10 are rejected in the analysis of claim 9 (see claim 9 above). Yamamoto further discloses a method for transmitting a bitstream and transmitting the bitstream (FIG. 27, a bitstream is transmitted to receiver PROD_B1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rapaka et al. (Rapaka) (US 2016/0227214) ([0078], [0157], macroblock partitioning is performed).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7579. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Sath Perungavoor can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/JEFFERY A WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights