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 .
Detailed Action
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the correspondence on 06/05/2026. Applicant’s argument, filed on 06/05/2026 has been entered and carefully considered. Claims 1-7 are pending.
Double Patenting rejection against US 11,902,668 B2 is retained based on the amendments submitted on 06/05/2026.
The application filed on 12/19/2025 is a CON of 18/949,072 filed on 11/15/2024, which is a CON of 18/498,597 filed on 10/31/2023 (PAT 12231610), which is a CON of 18/314,965 filed on 05/10/2023 (PAT 11902668), which is a CON of 17/579,225 filed on 01/19/2022 (PAT 11696035), which is a CON of 17/027,154 filed on 09/21/2020 (PAT 11483476), which is a CON of 16/372,287 filed on 04/01/2019 (ABN). Claimed foreign priority to KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2016-0127887 filed on 10/04/2016, KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2016-0129386 filed on 10/06/2016, and KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2017-0090616 filed on 07/17/2017. The certified copy of priority has been filed on 01/14/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the 06/05/2026 Remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because of the following:
Regarding claims, on page 4-8 argues “wherein the lower coding unit ….. two lower coding units”. While the applicant’s argument points are understood, the examiner respectfully disagrees it is because Li in view of Yuan further in view of Alshina teaches (MPEP 2141.I, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its patentability”, Li discloses, Section I, Paragraph 2, block partitioning is for prediction block, Li, Section III.B, Without AMP modes, representation with smaller square blocks, so, AMP modes does not partition into plurality of blocks or prediction units, but, Li, Fig. 4, partition into two lower coding units, so, rejection is maintained).
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 6, 7 and similar dependent claims are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of US 11,902,668 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, below is a list of limitations that perform the same function, however, different terminology may be used in both sets to describe the limitations, as follows, Claim 1 is used as an example to analyze the common subject matter:
Conflicting Patent:- US 11,902,668 B2
Instant Application:-19/427,280
1. An image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising: receiving a bitstream in which an image is encoded; obtaining index information for specifying a block division type of a current block in the image from the bitstream; determining the block division type of the current block from a candidate group pre-defined in the image decoding apparatus based on the index information; dividing the current block into a plurality of sub-blocks based on the determined block division type; and decoding each of the sub-blocks to reconstruct the current block, wherein the candidate group includes at least one of a non-division, a first quad-division, a second quad-division, a binary-division or a triple-division, and wherein the first quad-division divides one coding block into four coding blocks based one horizontal line and one vertical line, the second quad-division divides one coding block into four coding blocks based on three horizontal lines or three vertical lines, the binary-division divides one coding block into two coding blocks, and the triple-division divides one coding block into three coding blocks.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the current block is a largest coding block or a block resulting from dividing the largest coding block, wherein a size of the largest coding block is variably determined based on information on the largest coding block, wherein the information on the largest coding block is signaled from the bitstream.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the size of the largest coding block is set equal to 128×128 or 64×64 according to the information on the largest coding block.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein a number of the candidate division types available for the current block is different dependent on at least one of a size of the current block or a shape of the current block.
1 A method for decoding an image, the method comprising: receiving a bitstream including information on the image; acquiring partitioning information for a default coding unit included in the image from the bitstream; partitioning the default coding unit into a plurality of lower coding units based on the partitioning information for the default coding unit; and decoding each of the lower coding units to reconstruct the image, wherein the image is reconstructed by reconstructing a block included in the image, 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, and wherein the bitstream comprises information on rotation of the image.
Referring to claim 1, taking claim 1 as exemplary, although conflicting Patent, US 11,902,668 B2, hereinafter ‘668, does not explicitly disclose what’s claimed in instant application 19/427,280, wherein the bitstream comprises information on rotation of the image.
However, Alshina et al. (US 20190342577 A1), hereinafter Alshina, teaches wherein the bitstream comprises information on rotation of the image ([0007]-[0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ‘668 to incorporate the teachings of Alshina to code high-resolution image content (Alshina, [0003]).
‘668 in view of Alshina discloses all the elements of claim 1 but they do not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section 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 and based on that the default coding unit is partitioned into four lower coding units, 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.
However, Li from the same or similar endeavor teaches 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 and based on that the default coding unit is partitioned into four lower coding units, 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 (Section III).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘668 in view of Alshina to incorporate the teachings of Li to improve coding efficiency (Li, Abstract). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Similar rejection can be presented for US 12028503 B2, US 12219114 B2, US 12225179 B2, US 12231610 B2, US 12238261 B2, US 12244783 B2, US 12256056 B2, US 12278939 B2, US 12323568 B2, US 12401775 B2, US 12413695 B2, US 12432331 B2, US 12542884 B2, US 12542883 B2, US 12549699 B2, US 12022199 B2, US 12035049 B2, US 11917195 B2, US 12184894 B2, US 12382096 B2, US 12610080 B2, US 11949994 B2, US 11956549 B2, US 11956548 B2, US 12096126 B2, US 12219262 B2, US 12225296 B2, US 12250466 B2, US 12289531 B2, US 12294786 B2, US 12309498 B2, US 12335626 B2, US 11902579 B2, US 11902578 B2, US 11910018 B2, US 12003771 B2, US 12069304 B2, US 12096028 B2, US 12192522 B2, US 12250405 B2, US 12382099 B2, US 12389035 B2, US 12425649 B2, US 11831818 B2, US 12167139 B2, US 11647179 B2, US 12250369 B2, US 12519932 B2, US 12531981 B2, US 11539979 B2, US 11483476 B2, US 11297309 B2, US 12075026 B2, US 12574498 B2, US 12574497 B2, US 12574496 B2, US 12574495 B2, US 11202005 B2, US 11533429 B2, US 11910094 B2, US 12015854 B2, US 12096127 B2, US 12108158 B2, US 12212854 B2, US 12256149 B2, US 12262122 B2, US 12389123 B2, US 12464244 B2, US 12506969 B2, US 12506968 B2, US 12556825 B2, US 12615440 B2.
A nonstatutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope or filing of a terminal disclaimer.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-5 refer to "A method for decoding an image”, Claim 6 refers to "A method for encoding an image”, and Claim 7 refers to "A method for transmitting a bit stream”. Claims 6-7 are similarly rejected in light of rejection of claims 1-5, any obvious combination of the rejection of claims 1-5, or the differences are obvious to the ordinary skill in the art. It is well known in the art that encoding and decoding are reverse processes of video coding method/system.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20170208336 A1), hereinafter Li, in view of Yuan et al. ("Quadtree Based Nonsquare Block Structure for Inter Frame Coding in High Efficiency Video Coding," in IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 1707-1719, Dec. 2012), hereinafter Yuan, further in view of Alshina.
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a method for decoding an image, the method comprising (Abstract): receiving a bitstream including information on the image (Fig. 5, element 400); acquiring partitioning information for a default coding unit included in the image from the bitstream (Fig. 5, element 402); partitioning the default coding unit into a plurality of lower coding units based on the partitioning information for the default coding unit (Fig. 5, element 402); and decoding each of the lower coding units to reconstruct the image, wherein the image is reconstructed by reconstructing a block included in the image (Fig. 5, element 404); and based on that the default coding unit is partitioned into four lower coding units, 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 (Section III, Fig. 4).
Li discloses all the elements of claim 1 but Li does not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section 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.
However, Yuan from the same or similar endeavor teaches 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 (Section III.A, shape signaling).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to incorporate the teachings of Yuan to improve coding efficiency (Yuan, Abstract). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Li in view of Yuan discloses all the elements of claim 1 but they do not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section and wherein the bitstream comprises information on rotation of the image.
However, Alshina teaches and wherein the bitstream comprises information on rotation of the image ([0007]-[0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Li in view of Yuan to incorporate the teachings of Alshina to code high-resolution image content (Alshina, [0003]). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Regarding claim 2, Li in view of Yuan further in view of Alshina discloses the method of claim 1, the lower coding unit is partitioned into the plurality of prediction units based on type-based partitioning (Yuan, Section II-III).
Regarding claim 3, Li in view of Yuan further in view of Alshina discloses the method of claim 1, wherein whether to further partition the lower coding unit is determined based on whether the default coding unit is quad-tree partitioned (Yuan, Section II-III).
Regarding claim 4, Li in view of Yuan further in view of Alshina discloses 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 unit (Yuan, Section II-III).
Regarding claim 5, Li in view of Yuan further in view of Alshina discloses 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 (Yuan, Section II-III, Li, [0070]-[0073]).
Regarding claim 6-7, See Examiner’s Note.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MOHAMMAD J RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-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, David 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.
/Mohammad J Rahman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights