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 .
This office action is in response to application filed 01/29/2026 in which claims 1-7 are pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the contents of the abstract are no longer immediately relevant to this continuation of the originally filed '251 application. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See M.P.E.P. § 608.01(b). The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: "Image partitioning with a plurality of default encoding parts".
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of co-pending application No. 19/465,114 in view of Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim.
The difference between the instant and conflicting co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions” in the instant claim. However Rapaka discloses “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions” in Para[0090] the block vector may indicate the position of the top-left corner of the prediction block relative to the position of the top-left corner of the current CU. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since it enables partitioning the CU into the PUs to enable a video encoder so as to obtain better prediction and minimize residual values, thus reducing size of a bit-stream.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of US Patent no. US 12,587,639 B2
(application No. 19/321,637) in view of Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting patent claim.
The difference between the instant and conflicting patent claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions, wherein the decoding the image partition comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image partition to generate a prediction block” in the instant claim. However Rapaka discloses these limitations in Para[0090] the block vector may indicate the position of the top-left corner of the prediction block relative to the position of the top-left corner of the current CU, Para [0140] When the video slice is coded as an intra-coded (I) slice, intra prediction unit 84 of prediction processing unit 81 may generate prediction data for a video block of the current video slice based on a signaled intra prediction mode and data from previously decoded blocks of the current frame or picture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since it enables partitioning the CU into the PUs to enable a video encoder so as to obtain better prediction and minimize residual values, thus reducing size of a bit-stream.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of co-pending application No. 19/463,869 in view of Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim.
The difference between the instant and conflicting co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions, wherein the decoding the image partition comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image partition to generate a prediction block” in the instant claim. However Rapaka discloses these limitations in Para[0090] the block vector may indicate the position of the top-left corner of the prediction block relative to the position of the top-left corner of the current CU, Para [0140] When the video slice is coded as an intra-coded (I) slice, intra prediction unit 84 of prediction processing unit 81 may generate prediction data for a video block of the current video slice based on a signaled intra prediction mode and data from previously decoded blocks of the current frame or picture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since it enables partitioning the CU into the PUs to enable a video encoder so as to obtain better prediction and minimize residual values, thus reducing size of a bit-stream.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of co-pending application No. 19/463,875 in view of Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim.
The difference between the instant and conflicting co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions” in the instant claim. However Rapaka discloses “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions” in Para[0090] the block vector may indicate the position of the top-left corner of the prediction block relative to the position of the top-left corner of the current CU. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since it enables partitioning the CU into the PUs to enable a video encoder so as to obtain better prediction and minimize residual values, thus reducing size of a bit-stream.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of co-pending application No. 19/463,880 in view of Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim.
The difference between the instant and conflicting co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions, wherein the decoding the image partition comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image partition to generate a prediction block” in the instant claim. However Rapaka discloses these limitations in Para[0090] the block vector may indicate the position of the top-left corner of the prediction block relative to the position of the top-left corner of the current CU, Para [0140] When the video slice is coded as an intra-coded (I) slice, intra prediction unit 84 of prediction processing unit 81 may generate prediction data for a video block of the current video slice based on a signaled intra prediction mode and data from previously decoded blocks of the current frame or picture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since it enables partitioning the CU into the PUs to enable a video encoder so as to obtain better prediction and minimize residual values, thus reducing size of a bit-stream.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of co-pending application No. 19/463,887 in view of Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim.
The difference between the instant and conflicting co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions, wherein the decoding the image partition comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image partition to generate a prediction block” in the instant claim. However Rapaka discloses these limitations in Para[0090] the block vector may indicate the position of the top-left corner of the prediction block relative to the position of the top-left corner of the current CU, Para [0140] When the video slice is coded as an intra-coded (I) slice, intra prediction unit 84 of prediction processing unit 81 may generate prediction data for a video block of the current video slice based on a signaled intra prediction mode and data from previously decoded blocks of the current frame or picture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since it enables partitioning the CU into the PUs to enable a video encoder so as to obtain better prediction and minimize residual values, thus reducing size of a bit-stream.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of co-pending application No. 19/463,895 in view of Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim.
The difference between the instant and conflicting co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions, wherein the decoding the image partition comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image partition to generate a prediction block” in the instant claim. However Rapaka discloses these limitations in Para[0090] the block vector may indicate the position of the top-left corner of the prediction block relative to the position of the top-left corner of the current CU, Para [0140] When the video slice is coded as an intra-coded (I) slice, intra prediction unit 84 of prediction processing unit 81 may generate prediction data for a video block of the current video slice based on a signaled intra prediction mode and data from previously decoded blocks of the current frame or picture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since it enables partitioning the CU into the PUs to enable a video encoder so as to obtain better prediction and minimize residual values, thus reducing size of a bit-stream.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of co-pending application No. 19/465,109 in view of Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim.
The difference between the instant and conflicting co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions, wherein the decoding the image partition comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image partition to generate a prediction block” in the instant claim. However Rapaka discloses these limitations in Para[0090] the block vector may indicate the position of the top-left corner of the prediction block relative to the position of the top-left corner of the current CU, Para [0140] When the video slice is coded as an intra-coded (I) slice, intra prediction unit 84 of prediction processing unit 81 may generate prediction data for a video block of the current video slice based on a signaled intra prediction mode and data from previously decoded blocks of the current frame or picture.. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since it enables partitioning the CU into the PUs to enable a video encoder so as to obtain better prediction and minimize residual values, thus reducing size of a bit-stream.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of co-pending application No. 19/465,122 in view of Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim.
The difference between the instant and conflicting co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions, wherein the decoding the image partition comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image partition to generate a prediction block” in the instant claim. However Rapaka discloses these limitations in Para[0090] the block vector may indicate the position of the top-left corner of the prediction block relative to the position of the top-left corner of the current CU, Para [0140] When the video slice is coded as an intra-coded (I) slice, intra prediction unit 84 of prediction processing unit 81 may generate prediction data for a video block of the current video slice based on a signaled intra prediction mode and data from previously decoded blocks of the current frame or picture.. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since it enables partitioning the CU into the PUs to enable a video encoder so as to obtain better prediction and minimize residual values, thus reducing size of a bit-stream.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of co-pending application No. 19/465,126 in view of Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim.
The difference between the instant and conflicting co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions, wherein the decoding the image partition comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image partition to generate a prediction block” in the instant claim. However Rapaka discloses these limitations in Para[0090] the block vector may indicate the position of the top-left corner of the prediction block relative to the position of the top-left corner of the current CU, Para [0140] When the video slice is coded as an intra-coded (I) slice, intra prediction unit 84 of prediction processing unit 81 may generate prediction data for a video block of the current video slice based on a signaled intra prediction mode and data from previously decoded blocks of the current frame or picture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since it enables partitioning the CU into the PUs to enable a video encoder so as to obtain better prediction and minimize residual values, thus reducing size of a bit-stream.
Claim 1-7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-7 of co-pending application No. 19/463,541 in view of Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim.
The difference between the instant and conflicting co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the decoding the image partition comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image partition to generate a prediction block” in the instant claim. However Rapaka discloses this limitation in Para [0140] When the video slice is coded as an intra-coded (I) slice, intra prediction unit 84 of prediction processing unit 81 may generate prediction data for a video block of the current video slice based on a signaled intra prediction mode and data from previously decoded blocks of the current frame or picture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since it enables partitioning the CU into the PUs to enable a video encoder so as to obtain better prediction and minimize residual values, thus reducing size of a bit-stream.
Claim 1-7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-7 of co-pending application No. 19/463,572 in view of Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim.
The difference between the instant and conflicting co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the decoding the image partition comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image partition to generate a prediction block” in the instant claim. However Rapaka discloses this limitation in Para [0140] When the video slice is coded as an intra-coded (I) slice, intra prediction unit 84 of prediction processing unit 81 may generate prediction data for a video block of the current video slice based on a signaled intra prediction mode and data from previously decoded blocks of the current frame or picture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since it enables partitioning the CU into the PUs to enable a video encoder so as to obtain better prediction and minimize residual values, thus reducing size of a bit-stream.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 7 of co-pending application No. 19/463,895 in view of Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim.
The difference between the instant and conflicting co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions, wherein the decoding the image partition comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image partition to generate a prediction block” in the instant claim. However Rapaka discloses these limitations in Para[0090] the block vector may indicate the position of the top-left corner of the prediction block relative to the position of the top-left corner of the current CU, Para [0140] When the video slice is coded as an intra-coded (I) slice, intra prediction unit 84 of prediction processing unit 81 may generate prediction data for a video block of the current video slice based on a signaled intra prediction mode and data from previously decoded blocks of the current frame or picture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since it enables partitioning the CU into the PUs to enable a video encoder so as to obtain better prediction and minimize residual values, thus reducing size of a bit-stream.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of co-pending application No. 19/427236 in view of Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim.
The difference between the instant and conflicting co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions, wherein the decoding the image partition comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image partition to generate a prediction block” in the instant claim. However Rapaka discloses these limitations in Para[0090] the block vector may indicate the position of the top-left corner of the prediction block relative to the position of the top-left corner of the current CU, Para [0140] When the video slice is coded as an intra-coded (I) slice, intra prediction unit 84 of prediction processing unit 81 may generate prediction data for a video block of the current video slice based on a signaled intra prediction mode and data from previously decoded blocks of the current frame or picture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since it enables partitioning the CU into the PUs to enable a video encoder so as to obtain better prediction and minimize residual values, thus reducing size of a bit-stream.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of co-pending application No. 19426354 in view of Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim.
The difference between the instant and conflicting co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions, wherein the decoding the image partition comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image partition to generate a prediction block” in the instant claim. However Rapaka discloses these limitations in Para[0090] the block vector may indicate the position of the top-left corner of the prediction block relative to the position of the top-left corner of the current CU, Para [0140] When the video slice is coded as an intra-coded (I) slice, intra prediction unit 84 of prediction processing unit 81 may generate prediction data for a video block of the current video slice based on a signaled intra prediction mode and data from previously decoded blocks of the current frame or picture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since it enables partitioning the CU into the PUs to enable a video encoder so as to obtain better prediction and minimize residual values, thus reducing size of a bit-stream.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of co-pending application No. 19/320,750 in view of Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim.
The difference between the instant and conflicting co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions, wherein the decoding the image partition comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image partition to generate a prediction block” in the instant claim. However Rapaka discloses these limitations in Para[0090] the block vector may indicate the position of the top-left corner of the prediction block relative to the position of the top-left corner of the current CU, Para [0140] When the video slice is coded as an intra-coded (I) slice, intra prediction unit 84 of prediction processing unit 81 may generate prediction data for a video block of the current video slice based on a signaled intra prediction mode and data from previously decoded blocks of the current frame or picture. . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since it enables partitioning the CU into the PUs to enable a video encoder so as to obtain better prediction and minimize residual values, thus reducing size of a bit-stream.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of co-pending application No. 19/317,148 in view of Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim.
The difference between the instant and conflicting co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions, wherein the decoding the image partition comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image partition to generate a prediction block” in the instant claim. However Rapaka discloses these limitations in Para[0090] the block vector may indicate the position of the top-left corner of the prediction block relative to the position of the top-left corner of the current CU, Para [0140] When the video slice is coded as an intra-coded (I) slice, intra prediction unit 84 of prediction processing unit 81 may generate prediction data for a video block of the current video slice based on a signaled intra prediction mode and data from previously decoded blocks of the current frame or picture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since it enables partitioning the CU into the PUs to enable a video encoder so as to obtain better prediction and minimize residual values, thus reducing size of a bit-stream.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of co-pending application No. 19/411,186 in view of Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim.
The difference between the instant and conflicting co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions, wherein the decoding the image partition comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image partition to generate a prediction block” in the instant claim. However Rapaka discloses these limitations in Para[0090] the block vector may indicate the position of the top-left corner of the prediction block relative to the position of the top-left corner of the current CU, Para [0140] When the video slice is coded as an intra-coded (I) slice, intra prediction unit 84 of prediction processing unit 81 may generate prediction data for a video block of the current video slice based on a signaled intra prediction mode and data from previously decoded blocks of the current frame or picture. . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since it enables partitioning the CU into the PUs to enable a video encoder so as to obtain better prediction and minimize residual values, thus reducing size of a bit-stream.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of co-pending application No. 19/411,187 in view of Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim.
The difference between the instant and conflicting co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions” in the instant claim. However Rapaka discloses “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions” in Para[0090] the block vector may indicate the position of the top-left corner of the prediction block relative to the position of the top-left corner of the current CU. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since it enables partitioning the CU into the PUs to enable a video encoder so as to obtain better prediction and minimize residual values, thus reducing size of a bit-stream.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of co-pending application No. 19/411,188 in view of Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim.
The difference between the instant and conflicting co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions, wherein the decoding the image partition comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image partition to generate a prediction block” in the instant claim. However Rapaka discloses these limitations in Para[0090] the block vector may indicate the position of the top-left corner of the prediction block relative to the position of the top-left corner of the current CU, Para [0140] When the video slice is coded as an intra-coded (I) slice, intra prediction unit 84 of prediction processing unit 81 may generate prediction data for a video block of the current video slice based on a signaled intra prediction mode and data from previously decoded blocks of the current frame or picture. . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since it enables partitioning the CU into the PUs to enable a video encoder so as to obtain better prediction and minimize residual values, thus reducing size of a bit-stream.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of co-pending application No. 19/411,189 in view of Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim.
The difference between the instant and conflicting co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions, wherein the decoding the image partition comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image partition to generate a prediction block” in the instant claim. However Rapaka discloses these limitations in Para[0090] the block vector may indicate the position of the top-left corner of the prediction block relative to the position of the top-left corner of the current CU, Para [0140] When the video slice is coded as an intra-coded (I) slice, intra prediction unit 84 of prediction processing unit 81 may generate prediction data for a video block of the current video slice based on a signaled intra prediction mode and data from previously decoded blocks of the current frame or picture. . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since it enables partitioning the CU into the PUs to enable a video encoder so as to obtain better prediction and minimize residual values, thus reducing size of a bit-stream.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of co-pending application No. 19/426,346 in view of Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim.
The difference between the instant and conflicting co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions” in the instant claim. However Rapaka discloses “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions” in Para[0090] the block vector may indicate the position of the top-left corner of the prediction block relative to the position of the top-left corner of the current CU. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since it enables partitioning the CU into the PUs to enable a video encoder so as to obtain better prediction and minimize residual values, thus reducing size of a bit-stream.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of co-pending application No. 19/426,318 in view of Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim.
The difference between the instant and conflicting co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions, wherein the decoding the image partition comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image partition to generate a prediction block” in the instant claim. However Rapaka discloses these limitations in Para[0090] the block vector may indicate the position of the top-left corner of the prediction block relative to the position of the top-left corner of the current CU, Para [0140] When the video slice is coded as an intra-coded (I) slice, intra prediction unit 84 of prediction processing unit 81 may generate prediction data for a video block of the current video slice based on a signaled intra prediction mode and data from previously decoded blocks of the current frame or picture. . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since it enables partitioning the CU into the PUs to enable a video encoder so as to obtain better prediction and minimize residual values, thus reducing size of a bit-stream.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of co-pending application No. 19/426,339 in view of Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim.
The difference between the instant and conflicting co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions, wherein the decoding the image partition comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image partition to generate a prediction block” in the instant claim. However Rapaka discloses these limitations in Para[0090] the block vector may indicate the position of the top-left corner of the prediction block relative to the position of the top-left corner of the current CU, Para [0140] When the video slice is coded as an intra-coded (I) slice, intra prediction unit 84 of prediction processing unit 81 may generate prediction data for a video block of the current video slice based on a signaled intra prediction mode and data from previously decoded blocks of the current frame or picture. . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since it enables partitioning the CU into the PUs to enable a video encoder so as to obtain better prediction and minimize residual values, thus reducing size of a bit-stream.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of co-pending application No. 19/463,564 in view of Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim.
The difference between the instant and conflicting co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions, wherein the decoding the image partition comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image partition to generate a prediction block” in the instant claim. However Rapaka discloses these limitations in Para[0090] the block vector may indicate the position of the top-left corner of the prediction block relative to the position of the top-left corner of the current CU, Para [0140] When the video slice is coded as an intra-coded (I) slice, intra prediction unit 84 of prediction processing unit 81 may generate prediction data for a video block of the current video slice based on a signaled intra prediction mode and data from previously decoded blocks of the current frame or picture. . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since it enables partitioning the CU into the PUs to enable a video encoder so as to obtain better prediction and minimize residual values, thus reducing size of a bit-stream.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of co-pending application No. 19/463,592 in view of Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim.
The difference between the instant and conflicting co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions, wherein the decoding the image partition comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image partition to generate a prediction block” in the instant claim. However Rapaka discloses these limitations in Para[0090] the block vector may indicate the position of the top-left corner of the prediction block relative to the position of the top-left corner of the current CU, Para [0140] When the video slice is coded as an intra-coded (I) slice, intra prediction unit 84 of prediction processing unit 81 may generate prediction data for a video block of the current video slice based on a signaled intra prediction mode and data from previously decoded blocks of the current frame or picture. . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since it enables partitioning the CU into the PUs to enable a video encoder so as to obtain better prediction and minimize residual values, thus reducing size of a bit-stream.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of co-pending application No. 19/411,183 in view of Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is obvious over the conflicting co-pending claim.
The difference between the instant and conflicting co-pending claim is the addition of limitation “wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions, wherein the decoding the image partition comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image partition to generate a prediction block” in the instant claim. However Rapaka discloses these limitations in Para[0090] the block vector may indicate the position of the top-left corner of the prediction block relative to the position of the top-left corner of the current CU, Para [0140] When the video slice is coded as an intra-coded (I) slice, intra prediction unit 84 of prediction processing unit 81 may generate prediction data for a video block of the current video slice based on a signaled intra prediction mode and data from previously decoded blocks of the current frame or picture. . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize limitation in the method of the conflicting co-pending claim, since it enables partitioning the CU into the PUs to enable a video encoder so as to obtain better prediction and minimize residual values, thus reducing size of a bit-stream.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1) in view of Hannuksela et al. (US 2017/0347026).
Regarding claim 1, Rapaka discloses a method for decoding an image, the method comprising: receiving a bitstream for the image (FIG. 3 & Para [0136] teaches during the decoding process, video decoder 30 receives an encoded video bitstream that represents video blocks of an encoded video slice and associated syntax elements from video encoder 20); obtaining information on image partitioning for the image based on the bitstream; obtaining a plurality of image partitions included in the image based on the information on image partitioning (Para[0157] teaches split information is signaled by the encoder and received by the decoder, para[0175]-[0176] teaches video decoder 30 may decode, from an encoded bitstream, a syntax element that indicates whether a current PU of a current CU is divided into a plurality of sub-PUs (802). Video decoder 30 may decode, from the encoded video bitstream, a syntax element that indicates a number of lines that are in one or more of the sub-PUs (804)); and decoding the plurality of image partitions, wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions(Para[0090] teaches the block vector may indicate the position of the top-left corner of the prediction block relative to the position of the top-left corner of the current CU), wherein the decoding the image partition comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image partition to generate a prediction block (Para [0140] teaches when the video slice is coded as an intra-coded (I) slice, intra prediction unit 84 of prediction processing unit 81 may generate prediction data for a video block of the current video slice based on a signaled intra prediction mode and data from previously decoded blocks of the current frame or picture), wherein each image partitions comprises a plurality of default encoding part Para[0179] & Fig. 3 teaches prediction processing unit 81 may determine a respective vector predictor for each respective sub-PU of the plurality of sub-Pus), the default encoding part is selected from a plurality of candidate default encoding parts, each candidate default encoding parts is composed of one or more encoding sub-unit (para[0169] teaches prediction processing unit 41 may select the respective vector predictor for each sub-PU from a respective list of candidate vector predictors and encode an indication of which vector prediction is selected. para[0175]& Fig. 8 teaches entropy decoding unit 80 may decode, and provide to prediction processing unit 81, a flag (e.g., sub_pu_present flag of Table 1) at the PU level with a value that indicates that adaptive partitioning is enabled (i.e., that the current PU is divided into the plurality of sub-PUs)),
Rapaka does not explicitly disclose and wherein the bitstream comprises information on rotation of the image. However Hannuksela discloses and wherein the bitstream comprises information on rotation of the image (Para[0288], [0298], [0306] teaches yaw information for the image (viewport) is signaled). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the method in which each sub-PU of the set of sub-PUs is reconstructed based on respective predictor blocks of video data enabling partitioning the CU into the PUs of Rapaka with method for encoding media content of Hannuksela in order to provide a more accurate reproduction of an image and to reduce the bit rate needed to transport the image.
Regarding claim 2, Rapaka discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of candidate default encoding parts comprises first default encoding part identical to one encoding sub-unit (FIGs. 5A & para [0022] teaches a coding unit is split into sub coding units, para [0151] teaches the coding unit (CU) is divided into a single prediction unit (PU or sub unit)) and second default encoding part having consecutive two encoding sub-units (FIGs. 5B-5C, 6A-6D).
Regarding claim 3, Rapaka discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the information on image partitioning comprises information indicating image partitioning Para[0023], a split enable flag is signaled, Para [0157], Para [0164] teaches a video coder may code a syntax element that specifies whether a current PU is divided into a plurality of sub-PUs ) and partitioning type information indicating partitioning form (Para[0157] & FIGS. 6A-6D teaches a video coder may code one or more syntax elements to indicate the split information. In some examples, a video coder may code one or more syntax elements that indicate a number of lines (i.e., rows or columns) that are in the sub-PUs. For instance, in the example of FIG. 6A, a video coder may code a syntax element that specifies how many lines are included in sub-PU0 (i.e., specifies the value of nL). In some examples, a video coder may code a syntax element that indicates whether the current PU is divided horizontally or vertically).
Regarding claim 6, Rapaka discloses a method for encoding an image (Fig. 2 teaches encoder), the method comprising: obtaining a plurality of image partitions included in the image (Para[0150]-[0158] teaches the video coder partitions an image); obtaining information on image partitioning for the image based on the obtained image partitions (Para [0157] teaches a video coder may code one or more syntax elements to indicate the split information); encoding the information on image partitioning into a bitstream; and encoding the plurality of image partitions into the bitstream (Para [0157] teaches a video coder may code one or more syntax elements to indicate the split information), wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions (para[0090] teaches the block vector may indicate the position of the top-left corner of the prediction block relative to the position of the top-left corner of the current CU), wherein the encoding the image partition comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image partition to generate a prediction block (para [0110] Intra prediction processing unit 46 within prediction processing unit 41 may perform intra-predictive coding of the current video block relative to one or more neighboring blocks in the same frame or slice as the current block to be coded to provide spatial compression), wherein each image partitions comprises a plurality of default encoding part (FIGs. 5a-5d, 6a-6d teaches each region is made of prediction units/sub prediction units), the default encoding part is selected from a plurality of candidate default encoding parts, each candidate default encoding parts is composed of one or more encoding sub-unit (para[0169] teaches prediction processing unit 41 may select the respective vector predictor for each sub-PU from a respective list of candidate vector predictors and encode an indication of which vector prediction is selected. para[0175]& Fig. 8 teaches entropy decoding unit 80 may decode, and provide to prediction processing unit 81, a flag (e.g., sub_pu_present flag of Table 1) at the PU level with a value that indicates that adaptive partitioning is enabled (i.e., that the current PU is divided into the plurality of sub-PUs),
Rapaka does not explicitly disclose and wherein the bitstream comprises information on rotation of the image. However Hannuksela discloses and wherein the bitstream comprises information on rotation of the image (Para[0288], [0298], [0306] teaches yaw information for the image (viewport) is signaled). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the method in which each sub-PU of the set of sub-PUs is reconstructed based on respective predictor blocks of video data enabling partitioning the CU into the PUs of Rapaka with method for encoding media content of Hannuksela in order to provide a more accurate reproduction of an image and to reduce the bit rate needed to transport the image.
Regarding claim 7, Rapaka discloses a method for transmitting a bitstream, the method comprising: obtaining a plurality of image partitions included in the image (Para[0150]-[0158] teaches the video coder partitions an image); obtaining information on image partitioning for the image based on the obtained image partitions (Para [0157] teaches a video coder may code one or more syntax elements to indicate the split information); encoding the information on image partitioning into a bitstream (Para [0157] teaches a video coder may code one or more syntax elements to indicate the split information); encoding the plurality of image partitions into the bitstream (Para [0087], [0092], Para [0165] teaches coding units are partitioned into prediction units to generate a bitstream); and transmitting the bitstream, wherein the information on image partitioning comprises location information for the image partitions (para[0090] teaches the block vector may indicate the position of the top-left corner of the prediction block relative to the position of the top-left corner of the current CU), wherein the encoding the image partition comprises performing intra prediction for a block included in the image partition to generate a prediction block (para [0110] teaches Intra prediction processing unit 46 within prediction processing unit 41 may perform intra-predictive coding of the current video block relative to one or more neighboring blocks in the same frame or slice as the current block to be coded to provide spatial compression), wherein each image partitions comprises a plurality of default encoding part (FIGs. 5a-5d, 6a-6d teaches each region is made of prediction units/sub prediction units), the default encoding part is selected from a plurality of candidate default encoding parts, each candidate default encoding parts is composed of one or more encoding sub-unit para[0169] teaches prediction processing unit 41 may select the respective vector predictor for each sub-PU from a respective list of candidate vector predictors and encode an indication of which vector prediction is selected. para[0175]& Fig. 8 teaches entropy decoding unit 80 may decode, and provide to prediction processing unit 81, a flag (e.g., sub_pu_present flag of Table 1) at the PU level with a value that indicates that adaptive partitioning is enabled (i.e., that the current PU is divided into the plurality of sub-PUs),
Rapaka does not explicitly disclose and wherein the bitstream comprises information on rotation of the image. However Hannuksela discloses and wherein the bitstream comprises information on rotation of the image (Para[0288], [0298], [0306] teaches yaw information for the image (viewport) is signaled). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the method in which each sub-PU of the set of sub-PUs is reconstructed based on respective predictor blocks of video data enabling partitioning the CU into the PUs of Rapaka with method for encoding media content of Hannuksela in order to provide a more accurate reproduction of an image and to reduce the bit rate needed to transport the image.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapaka et al. (US 2016/0227214 A1) in view of Hannuksela et al. (US 2017/0347026 A1) and Sung et al. (US 2015/0098509 A1)
Regarding claim 4, Rapaka in view of Hannuksela discloses the method of claim 1, Rapaka in view of Hannuksela does not explicitly disclose wherein the information on partitioned regions comprises information indicating scanning method for default encoding parts included in an image partition. However Sung discloses wherein the information on partitioned regions comprises information indicating scanning method for default encoding parts included in an image partition (Para[0065] & FIG. 6(a) teaches priorities of blocks included in a coding block may be determined according to raster scanning order. Raster scanning may refer to line scanning from the left to the right. Accordingly, when neighboring blocks are searched in raster scanning order for a block coded according to inter-view inter-prediction and the block coded according to inter-view inter-prediction is detected, the inter-view motion vector of the corresponding block may be set as the inter-view motion vector of the current texture block.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the method in which each sub-PU of the set of sub-PUs is reconstructed based on respective predictor blocks of video data enabling partitioning the CU into the PUs of Rapaka in view of Hannuksela with the method of selectively utilizing the interview motion vector of the spatial/temporal neighbor block and inducing the inter-view motion vector in an easy manner of Sung in order to provide a system for a more efficient image encoding/decoding.
Regarding claim 5, Sung discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the information indicating scanning method comprises a raster scan method and a clockwise scan method (Para[0065] & FIG. 6(a) teaches priorities of blocks included in a coding block may be determined according
to raster scanning order. Raster scanning may refer to line scanning from the left to the right. Accordingly, when neighboring blocks are searched in raster scanning order for a block coded according to inter-view inter-prediction and the block coded according to inter-view inter-prediction is detected, the inter-view motion vector of the corresponding block may be set as the inter-view motion vector of the current texture block. Referring to FIG. 6(b), the priorities may be determined in clockwise or counter-clockwise scanning order from an inside block to an outside block in the coding block). Motivation to combine as indicated in claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2013/0136175 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROWINA J CATTUNGAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5922. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-6pm.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571) 272-7527. 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.
/ROWINA J CATTUNGAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights