DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-7 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5, 6 (claim 6 corresponds with both claims 5 and 7 of the instant application), and 8 of copending Application No. 18/526,602 (reference application). The difference between the instant application and the copending application being the limitation “wherein the prediction signal is generated by determining a prediction mode of the current block” in independent claims 1 and 5-7. Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the prior art rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5, 6 (claim 6 corresponds with both claims 5 and 7 of the instant application), and 8 of copending Application No. 18/523,855 (reference application). The difference between the instant application and the copending application being the limitation “wherein the prediction signal is generated by determining a prediction mode of the current block” in independent claims 1 and 5-7. Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the prior art rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 19/410,564 (reference application). The difference between the instant application and the copending application being the limitation “wherein the prediction signal is generated by determining a prediction mode of the current block” in independent claims 1 and 5-7. Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the prior art rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 19/410,439 (reference application). The difference between the instant application and the copending application being the limitation “wherein the prediction signal is generated by determining a prediction mode of the current block” in independent claims 1 and 5-7. Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the prior art rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-7 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 and 5-7 recite the limitations “determining whether a plurality of transformation forms are allowed for the current block; obtaining partitioning information indicating a partitioning depth for the current block based on the determination”. The applicant’s originally filed specification fails to disclose these limitations. Regarding the limitations “determining whether a plurality of transformation forms are allowed for the current block; obtaining partitioning information indicating a partitioning depth for the current block based on the determination”, the applicant cites [0083]-[0088] and [0634]-[0636] of the applicant’s specification as disclosing this limitation (see remarks filed 7/15/2026, pg. 10, para. 1). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
While [0083]-[0088] teach determining allowable transformation types based on a block size and [0634]-[0636] teach determining a partitioning scheme and an allowable partitioning depth based on a block size, neither of the cited sections teach “determining whether a plurality of transformation forms are allowed for the current block; obtaining partitioning information indicating a partitioning depth for the current block based on the determination (i.e. the cited sections do not teach a first step of determining allowable transform types for a block and then determining a partitioning depth based on the determination of allowable transform types).
Claims 2-4 are rejected based on their respective dependencies upon claim 1.
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 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (Zhao) (US 2017/0280162) in view of Zhao et al. (Zhao’290) (US 2016/0219290).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao discloses an image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising:
receiving a bitstream including information on a current image ([0095], a prediction mode is signaled for performing prediction);
obtaining a current block by dividing the current image (FIG. 2, [0004], [0021], [0023], [0048], [0051], the image is divided into coding unit blocks having a maximum or a minimal size);
deriving a size of a subblock based on at least one of a size of the current block ([0071], [0072], a sub block having a predetermined size is generated based on the size of a leaf node (i..e a current block));
partitioning the current block into one or more subblocks based on the size of the subblock ([0021], [0023], [0048], [0051], the image is divided into sub blocks having a maximum or a minimal size),
wherein the partitioning the current block is performed based on depth information ([0049], [0051], the block is split a number of times until it reaches a size indicated by a partitioning depth), and
wherein the depth information indicates the number of partitioning times of the current block ([0049], [0051], the block is split a number of times until it reaches a size indicated by a partitioning depth), and
performing inverse-transformation for the subblock ([0047], inverse transformation is performed);
generating a residual signal based on the inverse-transformation ([0048], a residual is generated); and
reconstructing the current block based on the residual signal and a prediction signal ([0005], [0118], [0157], [0160], samples (residuals) of the transform block are added to a prediction block to reconstruct a block),
wherein the prediction signal is generated by determining a prediction mode of the current block and performing prediction based on the determined prediction mode ([0095], a prediction mode is signaled for performing prediction),
wherein a binary tree partitioning is allowed for the current block having a width different from a height (FIG. 4a, block 51 is partitioned into blocks 55 and 56 using binary partitioning; block 53 is partitioned to produce blocks 61 and 62 using binary partitioning).
Zhao is silent about determining whether a plurality of transformation forms are allowed for the current block; obtaining partitioning information indicating a partitioning depth for the current block based on the determination.
Zhao’290 from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses determining whether a plurality of transformation forms are allowed for the current block ([0005], a subset of allowable transform types is determined); obtaining partitioning information indicating a partitioning depth for the current block based on the determination ([0088], a maximum partitioning depth is determined based on an allowed transform type).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhao’290 into the teachings of Zhao for more efficient image encoding/decoding.
Regarding claim 2, Zhao discloses wherein, in case the current block is square, a quadtree partitioning is performed for the current block (FIG. 4a, square block 50 is partitioned to yield 4 leaf blocks 51-53).
Regarding claim 3, Zhao discloses wherein the partitioning the current block is performed based on a predetermined index for a partitioning ([0053], partitioning flags are signaled), and
wherein, in case the current block is a 4Nx4N block (FIG. 3, block 40), the current block is not partitioned (FIG. 3, square blocks with solid lines are not furthered partitioned), or the current block is partitioned into four 2Nx2N subblocks (FIG. 4, block 51-53).
Regarding claim 5, Zhao discloses an image encoding method performed by an image encoding apparatus, the image encoding method comprising:
obtaining a current block by dividing a current image (FIG. 2, [0004], [0021], [0023], [0048], [0051], the image is divided into coding unit blocks having a maximum or a minimal size);
obtaining a residual signal for the current block based on a prediction signal ([0057], residuals are generated using prediction blocks);
deriving a size of a subblock based on at least one of a size of the current block ([0071], [0072], a sub block having a predetermined size is generated based on the size of a leaf node (i..e a current block));
partitioning the current block into one or more subblocks based on the size of the subblock ([0021], [0023], [0048], [0051], the image is divided into sub blocks having a maximum or a minimal size),
wherein depth information indicating the number of partitioning times of the current block is encoded ([0049], [0051], the block is split a number of times until it reaches a size indicated by a partitioning depth), and
performing transformation for the subblock ([0049], [0058], transform is applied); and
encoding the residual signal based on the transformation ([0048], a residual is generated),
wherein the prediction signal is generated by determining a prediction mode of the current block ([0095], a prediction mode is signaled for performing prediction), and
wherein a binary tree partitioning is allowed for the current block having a width different from a height (FIG. 4a, block 51 is partitioned into blocks 55 and 56 using binary partitioning; block 53 is partitioned to produce blocks 61 and 62 using binary partitioning).
Zhao is silent about determining whether a plurality of transformation forms are allowed for the current block; generating partitioning information indicating a partitioning depth for the current block based on the determination.
Zhao’290 from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses determining whether a plurality of transformation forms are allowed for the current block ([0005], a subset of allowable transform types is determined); generating partitioning information indicating a partitioning depth for the current block based on the determination ([0088], a maximum partitioning depth is determined based on an allowed transform type).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhao’ into the teachings of Zhao in for more efficient image encoding/decoding.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of claim 6 are rejected in the analysis of claim 5 (see claim 5 above). Zhao further discloses transmitting the bitstream (FIG. 1, the bitstream from outout device 12 is received at device 14).
Regarding claim 7, Zhao discloses a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a bitstream that is generated by an image encoding method performed by an image encoding apparatus ([0042], a stored program is executed).
Claim 7’s recitation of “a bit stream generated by a method, the method comprising…” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the modes, coding block, flags and values manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 7 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Smith recites a storage medium storing a bitstream ([0042]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (Zhao) (US 2017/0280162) in view of Zhao et al. (Zhao’290) (US 2016/0219290), and further in view of Kang et al. (Kang) (US 2014/0286421).
Regarding claim 4, Zhao in view of Zhao’290 discloses the method of claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Zhao in view of Zhao’290 is silent about wherein the partitioning the current block is performed differently according to whether a prediction mode of the current block is an inter mode or an intra mode.
Kang from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the partitioning the current block is performed differently according to whether a prediction mode of the current block is an inter mode or an intra mode ([0085], Table 1, there are different split types for each prediction mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kang into the teachings of Zhao in view of Zhao’290 for more efficient video coding and decoding.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li et al. (Li) (US 2017/0208336) ([0078], the depth of a node in a tree structure may refer to the length of the path (e.g., the number of splits) from the node to the root of the tree structure).
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