`Reply to Office Action dated May 12, 2020
`
`REMARKS
`
`Claims 1, 8, 14, 20, 27 and 33 have been amended. Claims 2-7, 9-13, 15-19, 21-
`
`26, 28-32 and 34-38 have been canceled. Claims 39-46 are new. No new matter has been added
`
`to the application. See, e.g., Figures 37-53 and the corresponding description on pages 43-157.
`
`The Examineris thanked for conferring by telephone on July 20, 2020, to discuss
`
`proposed amendments to the claims. Applicant indicated the proposed changes were intended to
`
`include more specifics regarding the characteristics of the sub blocks. For example, instead of
`
`reciting sub blocks havingfirst and second sets of geometries, the claims as amendedrecite
`
`characteristics of the sub blocks. The Examineris thanked for indicating a willingness to confer
`
`regarding the allowability of the claims after the present Amendmentis entered. The Examiner’s
`
`efforts to expedite prosecution are appreciated.
`
`The Examinerprovisionally rejected the previously pending claims on the ground
`
`of nonstatutory double patenting over claims of Co-pending Application 16/417517, with some
`
`of the rejections additionally relying on Park, et al. (WO2015/012622A1, with the Examiner
`
`relying on U.S. Pub. 2016/0173904 as an English translation). The independent claims of the
`
`present application are being amended, and the co-pending application has not issued as a patent,
`
`and thus this basis for rejection is not believed to be pertinent to the amendedclaims.
`
`Accordingly, the Examineris respectfully requested to withdraw the basis of rejection.
`
`The Examinerrejected claims 1-38 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly rendered
`
`obvious by PARK,without citing a secondary reference. The Examiner’s rejections are
`
`respectfully traversed.
`
`Independentclaim 1, as amended,recites in part as follows (with emphasis
`
`added):
`
`wherein the circuitry, in operation:
`
`in response to splitting a block of a picture into sub blocks along a single
`direction, sets one or more parameterstoafirst set of values;
`
`in response to splitting the block into four sub blocks usingafirst partition, each
`of the sub blocks having a samesize, sets the one or more parameters to a second
`set of values different from thefirst set of values;
`
`
`
`Application No. 16/417,514
`Reply to Office Action dated May 12, 2020
`
`in response to splitting the block into three sub blocks using a second partition,
`ratios of sizes of the sub blocks being 1:2:1, the second partition not including a
`partition splitting the block into four same-sized sub blocks, sets the one or more
`parameters to a third set of values different from the first_and second sets of
`values;
`
`encodes the sub blocks of the block; and
`
`writes the one or more parametersinto a bit stream.
`
`The Examinerappears to rely on Figures 8, 13, 15, 16, 20, Table 1 and generally
`
`on paragraphs[0363], [0364], [0369], [0420], [0439], [0445]-[0449], [0469], and [0480]. See
`
`the rejections of previously pending claims 8-10. The cited portion of Park does not appearto
`
`disclose or otherwise rendered obvious the above-emphasized features of independent claim 1 in
`
`combination with the other recited features, and independentclaim 1 is therefore allowable.
`
`While the language and scope of independentclaims 8, 14, 20, 27, and 33, as
`
`amended,are not identical to the language and scope of independent claim 1, as amended, the
`
`allowability of independent claims 8, 14, 20, 27, and 33 will be apparent in view ofthe
`
`discussion of independent claim 1. The dependentclaims are allowable at least by virtue of their
`
`dependencies.
`
`Respectfully, Applicant submits that the pending claims are allowable. Favorable
`
`consideration and a Notice of Allowanceare earnestly solicited.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`SEED Intellectual Property Law Group LLP
`
`/Timothy L. Boller/
`Timothy L. Boller
`Registration No. 47,435
`
`TLB:mc
`
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, Washington 98104-7092
`Phone: (206) 622-4900
`Fax:
`(206) 682-6031
`
`7478990
`
`10
`
`