DETAILED ACTION
This Office action for U.S. Patent Application No. 19/411,185 is responsive to communications filed 19 May 2026, in reply to the Non-Final Rejection of 9 April 2026 and the Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment of 13 May 2026.
Claims 1–7 are pending.
In the previous Office action, claims 1–7 were rejected provisionally for obviousness-type double patenting against claims 1–7 of copending application 19/411,202. Claims 1–7 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over US 2016/0227214 A1 (“Rapaka”) in view of US 2017/0347026 A1 (“Hannuksela”).
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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 19 May 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on US Application No. 19/411,202 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. As will be shown below, US 2017/0180737 A1 discloses the new limitations. Also, the amendment raises new issues under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 recites determining whether to further partition a lower coding unit “based on whether the default coding unit is quad-tree partitioned”. However, this is dependent on claim 1, which is amended to recite partitioning a lower coding unit into a plurality of prediction units “based on that the default coding unit is partitioned into four lower coding units” and not partitioning if the default coding unit is partitioned another way. As such, Claim 3 is now redundant with or even broader than claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0227214 A1 (“Rapaka”)1 in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0180737 A1 (“Ye”) and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0347026 A1 (“Hannuksela”).
Rapaka, directed to partitioning coding units of video data, teaches with respect to claim 1 a method for decoding an image, the method comprising:
receiving a bitstream including information on the image (Fig. 3, video decoder 30 receives encoded video bitstream);
acquiring partitioning information for a default coding unit (HEVC-SCC § 7.4.9.4, inferred size of coding unit (CU) based on split_cu_flag being not present) included in the image from the bitstream (Rapaka ¶¶ 0150–151, partition of CU into one or more prediction units (PU); HEVC-SCC § 7.4.9.5, part_mode syntax element);
partitioning the default coding unit into a plurality of lower coding units (Rapaka ¶¶ 0150–151, actually performing the partitioning) based on the partitioning information for the default coding unit (id., maximum size of PU no larger than size of CU); and
decoding each of the lower coding units to reconstruct the image (¶ 0144, decoder forms a decoded video block using predictive blocks),
wherein the image is reconstructed by performing prediction on a block included in the image (id., motion compensation),
wherein the lower coding unit is partitioned into a plurality of prediction units based on a size or a shape of the lower coding unit (Figs. 6C–6D, sub-partitions of horizontal and vertical PUs)
and based on that the default coding unit is partitioned into four lower coding units (Rapaka ¶¶ 0079–80, final leaf CU that is not split according to the quadtree partitioning is the basic coding node and subject to partitioning into PUs).
The claimed invention first differs from Rapaka in that the claimed invention teaches further details of handling default coding partitions. Rapaka discusses a coding unit and appears to assume a quadtree (¶ 0079), and mentions restricting sub-partitions implicitly without needing a syntax element if a PU is split horizontally or vertically (¶ 0059), but does not disclose forbidding partitioning specifically based on the default coding unit being partitioned into two lower coding units. However, Ye, directed to a video codec, teaches with respect to claim 1:
the lower coding unit is partitioned into a plurality of prediction units . . . based on that the default coding unit is partitioned into four lower coding units (¶ 0106, when quadtree splitting is enforced, making it the default partitioning as claimed, the split_transform_flag is signalled),
wherein the lower coding unit is not partitioned into the plurality of prediction units based on that the default coding unit is partitioned into two lower coding units (id., when quadtree splitting is not applied, that is, when the default splitting is something other than quadtree including the claimed binary partitioning) the split_transform_flag has an inferred default value of 0 (id.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to suppress partitioning if the partitioning mode is not quadtree, as taught by Ye, in order to reduce coding overhead by not coding syntax that can be inferred. Ye ¶ 0087.
The claimed invention further differs from Rapaka in that the claimed invention specifies the bitstream comprises image rotation information. Rapaka does not teach this limitation. However, Hannuksela, directed to a video codec, teaches with respect to claim 1:
wherein the bitstream comprises information on rotation of the image (e.g., ¶ 0288, coordinate system of yaw and pitch angles for omnidirectional content for coordination with specific viewing angle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to incorporate the Hannuksela angle coordinate mapping into the Rapaka codec, in order to enable utility such as virtual reality video. Hannuksela ¶ 0297.
Regarding claim 2, Rapaka in view of Hannuksela and Ye teaches the method of claim 1, the lower coding unit is partitioned into the plurality of prediction units based on type-based partitioning (HEVC-SCC § 7.4.9.5, pred_mode).
Regarding claim 3, Rapaka in view of Hannuksela and Ye teaches the method of claim 1, wherein to further partition the lower coding unit is determined based on whether the default coding unit is quad-tree partitioned (Rapaka ¶¶ 0079–80, final leaf CU that is not split according to the quadtree partitioning is the basic coding node and subject to partitioning into PUs; Ye ¶ 0106, split_transform_flag has a default value of 0 if quadtree splitting is not applied but split_transform_flag is active if quadtree tree splitting is enforced).
Regarding claim 4, Rapaka in view of Hannuksela and Ye teaches the method of claim 1, wherein whether to further partition the lower coding unit is determined based on a prediction mode of the default coding part (Rapaka ¶ 0161, sub-PU splitting not enabled for certain PU modes).
Regarding claim 5, Rapaka in view of Hannuksela and Ye teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the default coding unit is partitioned using a tree-based partitioning including a quad-tree partitioning and a binary-tree partitioning (Rapaka Figs. 5B–5D, binary and quad partitioning of a CU into PUs).
Regarding claim 6, Rapaka in view of Hannuksela and Ye teaches a method for encoding an image, the method comprising:
obtaining a default coding unit included in the image (Rapaka Fig. 2, encoding an image; ¶¶ 0150–151, HEVC-SCC coding units; HEVC-SCC § 7.4.9.4, inferred size of coding unit based on split_cu_flag being not present);
partitioning the default coding unit into a plurality of lower coding units (Rapaka ¶¶ 0150–151, actually performing the partitioning; ¶ 0092, video encoder 20 partitions CU into PU);
determining partitioning information for the default coding unit (HEVC-SCC § 7.4.9.5, part_mode syntax element); and
encoding the partitioning information and each of the lower coding units into a bitstream (id.),
wherein the image is encoded by performing prediction on a block included in the image (Rapaka ¶ 0108, prediction processing unit 41 in encoder selects prediction mode and uses predictive block for prediction),
wherein the lower coding unit is partitioned into a plurality of prediction units based on a size or a shape of the lower coding unit (Figs. 6C–6D, sub-partitions of horizontal and vertical PUs).
The claimed invention first differs from Rapaka in that the claimed invention teaches further details of handling default coding partitions. Rapaka discusses a coding unit and appears to assume a quadtree (¶ 0079), and mentions restricting sub-partitions implicitly without needing a syntax element if a PU is split horizontally or vertically (¶ 0059), but does not disclose forbidding partitioning specifically based on the default coding unit being partitioned into two lower coding units. However, Ye, directed to a video codec, teaches with respect to claim 1:
the lower coding unit is partitioned into a plurality of prediction units . . . based on that the default coding unit is partitioned into four lower coding units (¶ 0106, when quadtree splitting is enforced, making it the default partitioning as claimed, the split_transform_flag is signalled),
wherein the lower coding unit is not partitioned into the plurality of prediction units based on that the default coding unit is partitioned into two lower coding units (id., when quadtree splitting is not applied, that is, when the default splitting is something other than quadtree including the claimed binary partitioning) the split_transform_flag has an inferred default value of 0 (id.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to suppress partitioning if the partitioning mode is not quadtree, as taught by Ye, in order to reduce coding overhead by not coding syntax that can be inferred. Ye ¶ 0087.
The claimed invention further differs from Rapaka in that the claimed invention specifies the bitstream comprises image rotation information. Rapaka does not teach this limitation. However, Hannuksela, directed to a video codec, teaches with respect to claim 1:
wherein the bitstream comprises information on rotation of the image (e.g., ¶ 0288, coordinate system of yaw and pitch angles for omnidirectional content for coordination with specific viewing angle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to incorporate the Hannuksela angle coordinate mapping into the Rapaka codec, in order to enable utility such as virtual reality video. Hannuksela ¶ 0297.
Regarding claim 7, all other limitations present in claim 6, Rapaka in view of Hannuksela and Ye teaches:
transmitting the bitstream (Fig. 1, ¶ 0063; transmitting encoded video from source device 12 to destination device 14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art was found using an Artificial Intelligence assisted search using an internal AI tool that uses the classification of the application under the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system, as well as from the specification, including the claims and abstract, of the application as contextual information. The documents are ranked from most to least relevant. Where possible, English-language equivalents are given, and redundant results within the same patent families are eliminated. See “New Artificial Intelligence Functionality in PE2E Search”, 1504 OG 359 (15 November 2022), “Automated Search Pilot Program”, 90 F.R. 48,161 (8 October 2025).
US 2019/0028703 A1
US 2014/0086306 A1
US 2019/0289301 A1
US 2018/0324456 A1
US 2016/0309156 A1
US 2014/0341306 A1
US 2015/0208080 A1
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See M.P.E.P. § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 David N Werner whose telephone number is (571)272-9662. The examiner can normally be reached M--F 7:30--4:00 Central.
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, Dave Czekaj can be reached at 571.272.7327. 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.
/David N Werner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
1 Rapaka incorporates by reference HEVC Document No. JCTVC-R1005_v3, “High Efficiency Video Coding Screen Content Coding: Draft 1” (“HEVC-SCC”). Rapaka ¶¶ 0041, 0150.
Prosecution Insights