www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address; COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/587,961
`
`09/30/2019
`
`Chong Soon LIM
`
`735256.414C1
`
`9936
`
`Seed IP Law Group LLP/Panasonic (PIPCA)
`701 5th Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`PEREZ FUENTES, LUIS M
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2481
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`12/16/2020
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`USPTOeAction @ SeedIP.com
`
`pairlinkdktg @seedip.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-3,5-9,11-15 and 17-18 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) 4,10 and 14 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`[] Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-3,5-9,11-15 and 17-18 is/are rejected.
`1 Claim(s)__is/are objectedto.
`C] Claim(s)
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)() The drawing(s) filedon__is/are: a)C) accepted or b)C) objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12). Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`_—_c)L None ofthe:
`b)LJ Some**
`a)L) All
`1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1) Certified copies of the priority documents have beenreceived in Application No.
`3.2.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date 08/26/2020.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) (J Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`4)
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20201213
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`16/587,961
`LIM etal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`LUIS PEREZ-FUENTES
`2481
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEofthis communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133}.
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 10/20/2020.
`LC} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)l¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4\(Z Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/587,961
`Art Unit: 2481
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`This communication is being filed in response to the submission having a mailing date
`7.
`of (10/20/2020; in which a (3) month Shortened Statutory Period for Response has been set.
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AlA Status
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the
`2.
`first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Acknowledgements
`
`The Examiner undersigned would like to thank Atty. Shoko Leek; (R.N. 43,746) for the
`3.
`new amendments provided, and for the clearly stated remarks, received on date 10/20/2020.
`
`Upon entry, claims (1 -3, 5-9, 11 -15, 17 and 18) remain pending in the application, of
`3.1.
`which (1, 7 and 13) are the three (3) independent parallel running claim on record, being
`amended. Claims (4. 10 and 14) were cancelled.
`
`The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) that was submitted on (08/26/2020) is in
`3.2.
`compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure
`statement has been considered by the examiner.
`
`Interview
`
`By Applicants request, the undersigned provided an Interview on date (09/17/2020),
`4.
`in accordance wth MPEP § 713.04 where new potential amendments discussed.
`
`4.1.|The examiner pointed out that no allowable subject matter has been yetidentified in
`the claims, so that additional amendments are necessitated in order to move prosecution of
`the case forward. Alfhough no agreement was reached, the Examiner thanks Applicant's
`representative for his cooperation on how to possibly advance prosecution. Should you have
`MY
`any questions, you can reach me at: 571-270-1168 or Email: :
`
`Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but theyre not persuasive, in view
`5.
`of the new amendments provided, new ground of rejection, and for the followng reasons:
`
`Response to arguments
`
`5.1.|Examiner considers that the new combination of PA, in details disclose all the prev.
`and newy addedfeatures in the claims, that for the most part were part of the common
`knowledge, way before the invention was made/tiled.
`
`Examinerstill considers that still no allowable subject matter has been identified, as
`5.2.
`per the invention is directed to— “codec system, employing symmetrical & asymmetrical
`split and associated syntax techniques”, in accordance wth the codec standard, very
`well-known and described by the presented PA, way before the invention was made/filed.
`
`5.3.—It is valid to point out that in order to prove patentability, the claim language has to
`
`present a clear defined and novel functionality that would differentiate from the PA on record.
`The newy amendedlist of claims, (as currently stated) fails this requirement.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/587,961
`Art Unit: 2481
`
`Page 3
`
`the Patent Office gives the claims their broadest
`5.4. As a matter of claim interpretation,
`reasonable interpretation consistent wth the specs. See “In re Morris,” 127 F.3d 1048, 1054
`(Fed. Cir. 1997); see "In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr’, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369; Fed. Cir.2004.
`
`5.5.
`
`Regarding Applicant's arguments/remarks the Examiner considers;
`
`5.5.1. Applicant argues a failure to disclose the newly including partition order, ternary split
`and further amendments provided. Examiner respectfully disagrees because under the
`broadest reasonable interpretation doctrine, consistent wth the instant specs and the
`common knoweage ofone of ordinary skill in the art, the new combination on record in
`details discloses such combination of techniques, as claimed.
`
`NOTE:Forrationale and motivation addressing the newly added and amended features
`provided, please see rejection section (6).
`
`5.6._Finally the Office considers Applicant's arguments not persuasive, as applied rejection
`on record still read on the current claims, establishing the "Prima Facie" case of equivalent
`disclosure, on the basis of a one person ofordinary skills in the art would have recognized
`the similar elements shown, or the same structural similarities shown, wherein such
`methodology performs the same identical functions in substantially the same way, able to
`produce the same identical results. See also [MPEP - 2183, “Making a Prima Facie Case of
`Equivalence’]. See also [In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990)]; ...similar
`structure disclosure. See also [KemcoSales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 54 USPQ2d 1308
`(Fed. Cir. 2000)] ... identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way.
`
`Claim Rejections
`
`35 USC § 103 rejection
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
`6.
`U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any
`correction of the statutory basis for the rejection wil not be considered anew ground of
`rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the
`same undereither 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, notwthstanding 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 mannerin which the invention was made.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ
`6.1.
`459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under
`35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized asfollows:
`1. Determining the scope and contents ofthe priorart.
`2. Ascertaining the differences betweenthe prior art and the claimsatissue.
`3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinentart.
`4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indic ating obviousness or non-obviousness.
`
`Claims (1 -3, 5 -9, 11 -15, and 17 -18) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`6.2.
`unpatentable over Leannec; et al (“Asymmetric Coding Units in QTBT’, hereafter “Leannec”,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/587,961
`Art Unit: 2481
`
`Page 4
`
`in view of Chien; et al. (US 9,532,058; “Chien”; and further in view of Panusopone;et al (US
`20170347128; “Panusopone’”).
`
`Ciaim 7. (Gurrently Amended) Leannec discloses the invention substantially as claimed - &
`non-lransitory computer readable medium inctuding instructions which, when loaded
`
`iganimage decoder cause ihe image decoder io perform @ process including (e.g. see
`QiBT methodology for CU spilling in accordance wilh JVET proposal, (Fig. 1), Leanneec
`iurther describes the use of symmetrical and asymmetric Oinary partitioning (Figs. 2. 5) for
`either of the vertical ar horizontal directions, as shown in Figs. (2. 3, 3); and an associated
`syntax (e.g. signaling splitting framework for decoding execution [Chap. 2.1)},
`in order to
`improve partitioning and coding efficiency; [Leannec; pag. 1-2/3
`Taking the leachings of Leannec as a whale, and cansidering the basics and poeninc
`purpose of his papers, itis note that some of the components as claimedare missedanda
`not fully disclosed (Le. no codec component structure shown).
`in a similar filed of endeavor, Chien leaches a decoder method, apparatus and CAM
`as shown in Fig. (6 -&}) in complain wih the new and legacy codec siandards, eryploying
`symmetrical/asymmetrical spit techniques, aonlicabie fo square and non-square sub-biock
`shapes, as shown in Figs. (2 A-C}; associated wih both luma and chroma samples; alse in
`
`vertical and horizontal directions; (ohien, Sunny, Cal. |3-7Th)
`
`
`and iT (60) of the same; Fig. &
`
`
`
`
`coelticients andTTthetranstormnogticnents(e.g. SeeIQmodule 38
`Fig. 6: iCnisr 19:oe
`
`
`pinout totomodule (50): Pig. 6; [Chien}}
`a:“Vegq. data eeatmodule
`3
`
`
`(80) using symmetricalandasymmetricalpartitioningas Hhusirated in Figs. {2 AWCfeat)
`i
`tad efi
`solitting a block of a p
`
`inte a plurality of firstBlocks, (2.9. see horizontal Split in Fig. aC; nen
`luiding
`pide
`Siddalleh i
`
`sized N/A.xON fe.g. seeneee Ried spit type (meaning 25%, signaled by “n” indicator) in at
`
`
`least Figs. 28); Chien; Col 10; 77)3
`while a binary soll is not allowed fo split ihe NxeNn Block in the vertical direction
`
`
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/587,961
`Art Unit: 2481
`
`Page 5
`
`asymmetrical spilt, for only one direction, Figs. 28; iChien; Col. 1G) and decoding ihe
`plurality of sub blecks, (e.g. see dala reconstruction at decoder af Fig. 6[Chien|)}
`Even when the combined Leannec/Chien in detais teaches ihe symmetrical and
`asymmetrical Biock partition techniques, inciuding “non-square split, as shown in the
`corresoandent Figs. 2 in Both references; itis note however that the PA fais to mention the
`“ternary spilt tyoe” as claimed.
`in ihe same feid of endeavor, Panusopone; et
`Por the purpose of further clanhication,
`al teaches a similar codec system as shown in Figs. (7, 9 and 13; [Summary; 0147; 07677),
`employing binary tree partitioning, comprising “symmetricaland “asymmetrical or ternary”
`splf techniques, (Figs. (5 E/R/F; [0076-0077]}, allowed in any partition structure, in edher
`order during recursive spit; (0004), including sizes (N; 2N, SN, 4N) etc as iong as N is an
`meger vaiue; [Panusapone; 00277}
`fherefore, # would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before ihe effective
`filing date of the claimedinvention,
`to modify the leachings of Leannec with the system of
`Chien in order to (e.g. more efficient codec, improving video quality; (Chien; Summary}; and
`iuriier in view of Panusopone in orderto provide (e.g. partition rules and types in a more
`efficient way; [Summary; OO66].)
`
`Claim 2. (Currently Amended) scoringtoolan1hereinthethet, OISCIOSES ~ Tre
`
`pixels By 2N pivels and ane sub block sized N/Z pixels by 2N pixels. (The same rationale
`and motivation applies as given for the claim 7. in adeilion see symmeincal and
`asymmetrical split technigues, inciuding verticalhonzontal direction splits, as shown in Figs.
`2. in both Leannec/Chien/Panusopone.
`in adoition see spilt details in Col 10-17; fChien}}
`
`Claim &. (Currently Amended) Leannec/Chien/Panusopone disclases ~ The computer
`readable meciun according io ciain 4 wherein ine first partition mode inchides |
`by 2N pixels, 2“asecond sub block sized N/2 pixels by 2N pixels, and a third sub BIOCk
`sized N/4 pixels by 2N pixels, wherein ihe second suO Block is interposed between the
`first sub Bleck and the third sub bleck. (The same rationale and motivation anplies as
`given for the claim 7. In addition see symmetrical and asymmetrical spit techniques in Figs.
`2, including sub-block inter-positioning,
`in both Leannec/Chien/Panusopone.
`in addition see
`spilt details in Col 10-11; [CAien])}
`
`Ciaimn 4, (Canceled).
`
`Claim 3. (Currentiy Amended} Leannec/Chien‘PanusOpane discloses - The egmouter
`
`
`
`2M pixels and one sub block sized 3N/4 pixels by 2N pixels. (The same rationale and
`motivation applies as given for the claim f. in addiion see symmetrical and asymmetncal
`spilt techniques in Figs. 2 in both Leannec/Chien/Panusopone.
`in addition see Col 10-17;
`Chien}
`
`Claim 6, (Currently Amended) Learinec/Chien/Panusapone discloses — The computer
`readable mec according fo claim 7, wherein the processincludes: parsing a
`
`
`parameter indicative of the first partition mode; (e.g. see analogous parser unit £35) for
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/587,961
`Art Unit: 2481
`
`Page 6
`
`processing syntax parameter, signaling the ermpioved partition framework,
`6); iChien))
`
`in at least Figs. (3,
`
`Ciaim 7. (Gurrently Amended) Leannec/Ghien/Fanusopane discioses - An image decoder
`COMPLISiig:
`an entropy decoder which, in operation, receives and decodes an encoded
`biistream to obtain quantized transform coefticienis and a parameter indicative of a
`partition mode;
`&@ Block partition determiner which, in operation, derives a partition mode using
`the parameter;
`an inverse quantizer and transformer which, in operation, inverse quantizes the
`quantized transform coefficients to obtain transform coelficienis and inverse
`transiorms the transiorm coefficients to obtain residuals;
`an adder which, in operation, adds the residuals outputted from the inverse
`quantizer and transformer and predictions oulputied from a prediction controller to
`reconstruct Blocks; and
`fhe prediction controlier coupled to an inter predictor, an intra predicter, and a
`Memory,
`wherein the infer predictor, in operation, generaies a prediction of a current
`block based an a reference black in a decoded reference picture; and
`ihe intra predictor, in operation, generates a prediction of a current Block based
`
`Of an encoded reference Block in @ current picture,
`
`blocks. (Current lists all the same slenents as“recite in Claim 1 abave, but in “apparatus
`form” rather than “CRIMform’, andis/are therefore on the same premise. in adtlition see
`simiar structure in af east Fig. G; [Chien})}
`
`Claim 8. (Currently Amended) Leannec/Chien/Panusopone discioses - The image decoder
`according fo ciaim 7, wherein the first partition mode includes spitting the Mxen block
`biock sized N/2 pixels by 2M pixels. (The same rationale and motivation applies as given
`for the claims (7 and 2}. See also Figs. 2 in both Leannec/Chien/Panusovane.}
`
`Claim & (Currently Amended) Leannec/Chien/Panusoapone discioses - The image decoder
`according |fo claim &, wherein the lirst partition mode includes splitting the Nxenblock
`intheverticaldirectioninte a first sub block sized N/4 pixels by 2N pixels, 24second
`sub Block sized N/2 pixels by 2N pixels, and a third sub Block sized N/4 pixels By 2N
`pixels, wherein the secand sub block is interposed belween the first sub block and the
`third sub Biock. (The same rationale and motivation acnies as given for the claims (7 and
`3}. See also Figs. 2 for sub-Diock inter-positioning,
`in both Leannec/Chien/Panusopane.}
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/587,961
`Art Unit: 2481
`
`Claim 10. (Canceled).
`
`Page 7
`
`Claim 77. (Currently Amended) Leannec/Chien/Panusapone discloses - The image decoder
`according to claim 7, wherein the first partition mode includes splitting the NxeN Bleck
`
`Blocksized3N/4‘pixelsby aw pixels. (fhe same rationale and motivation applies as given
`for ihe claims 1 and 5. See also Figs. 2 in both Leannec/Chien/Panuscpone.}
`
`Claim 12 (Orginal) Leannec/Chien/Panusopone discloses - The image deceder accarding
`fo claim 7, wherein the entropy decoder, in operation: parses a parameter indicative of
`ihe first partitien mode. (The same rationale and motivation applies as given for the claims
`T and 6. See aiso syniax parameter, signaling the emploved partition framework, Figs. (6);
`
`ichient)
`
`Ciaim 13. (Currenily Amended) Leannec/Chien/Panusopone discloses -A decoding method
`
`COMDrisitig:
`info a plurality oFfirst blocks,
`
`spitting a Glock of a oiclure ina vertical diraction or in a horizontal creation.
`
`Blocks. (Current lists all ihe same elements as recite in Claim 1 above, bul in “method form”
`rather than “ORM form’, and is/are thereiore on ine same premise. in addition see simdar
`structure in at east Fig. (6) and flow method chart of Fig. (8); /Chien]))
`
`Ciaim 14. (Currently Amended) Leannec/Chien/Panusopone discloses -The decoding
`method according to claim 13, wherein the first partition mode includes splitting the
`
`and one subblocksizedNNpixelsby a pixels. (The same rationale and motivation
`applies as given forthe claims (1 and 2). See also Figs. 2 in both
`Leannec/Chien/Panusonone.}
`
`Claim 15. (Currenily Amended) Leannec/Chien/Panusopone discloses - The decoding
`method according to claim 14, wherein the first partition mode includes splitting the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/587,961
`Art Unit: 2481
`
`Page 8
`
`Nxeh block in the vertical direction info a first sub Block sized N/4 pixels by ZN pixels,
`& second sub block sized N/2 pixels By 2N pixels, and a third sub block sized N/4
`pixels by 2N pixels, wherein the second sub blockis interposed between the first sub
`block and the third sub Block. (The same ralionaie and motivation applies as given far the
`claims (7 and 3). See also Figs. 2 for sub-biock inter-posilioning,
`in bath
`Leannec/Chien/Panusopone.}
`
`Claim 7&. (Canceled).
`
`Claim 17, (Currently Amended) Leannec/Chien/Panusopone discloses -The decoding
`method according to claim 13, wherein the first partition mode includes aplitting the
`Nxeh Block in the vertical direction into one sub block sized N/4 pixels by 2N pixels
`and one sub Block sized 3N/4 pixels by 2N pixels. (The same rationale and motivation
`applies as given for the claims 1 and 5. See also Figs. 2 in both
`Leannec/Chien/Panusopone.}
`
`Giaim 78. (Currently Amended) Leannec/Chien/Panusopone discloses -The decoding
`method according to claim 13 wherein, ihe deriving sien inciuges parsing a parameter
`
`indicative of the first partitien mode. (The same rationale and motivation anplies as given
`for the claims 7 and 6. See alsa syntax parameter, signaling the partition framework, Figs.
`(G); [Chien})
`
`Examiner’s notes
`
`The referenced citations madein the rejection(s) above are intended to exemplify areas
`7.
`in the prior art document(s) in which the examiner believed are the most relevant to the
`claimed subject matter. However,
`it is incumbent upon the applicant to analyze the prior art
`document(s) in its/their entirety since other areas of the document(s) may be relied upon at a
`later time to substantiate examiner's rationale of record. A prior art reference must be
`considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole,
`including portions that would lead away from the
`claimed invention. W.L. Gore & associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed.Cir.
`1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). However, "the prior art's mere disclosure of more than one
`alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such
`disclosure does notcriticize, discredit, or otherwse discourage the solution claimed.."Inre
`Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQéd 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`Prior Art citation
`
`The followng List of PA, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent
`8.
`to Applicant's disclosure:
`
`8.1. Patent documentation:
`
`US 9532058 B2
`US 9883203 B2
`US 10382795 B2
`US 20190222841
`US 20170347128
`US 20170347096
`US 20170272750
`US 20150139317
`
`Chien;et al.
`Chien;et al.
`Huang;et al.
`Panusopone;etal.
`Panusopone;etal.
`Hong;etal.
`An;et al.
`Lee;etal.
`
`HO4N19/1 76; HO4N19/1 1;
`H0O4N19/139; HO4N1 9/136; HO4N19/1 76;
`H04N19/96; HO4N19/1 19; HO4N19/1 76;
`H04N19/119; HO4N1 9/70; HOAN19/96;
`H0O4N19/1 74; HO4N19/70; HOAN19/96;
`H0O4N19/119; HO4N19/1 72; HO4N19/70;
`H0O4N19/147; HO4N19/96; HO4N19/1 19;
`H0O4N19/13; HO4N19/46; HO4N19/176;
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/587,961
`Art Unit: 2481
`
`8.2. Non Patent Literature:
`
`Page 9
`
`_ Asymmetric coding unit in QTBT; Leannec; Oct-2016;
`_ Local-constrained quactree plus binary tree blockpartition structure; Wang; 2016;
`_ Effective Quadtree Plus Binary Tree Block Partition Decision; Wang;et al; May-11-2017;
`
`CONCLUSIONS
`
`Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in
`9.
`this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADEFINAL. See MPEP5 706.07(a).
`Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1 .1 36(a), A
`shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHSfrom
`the mailing date of this action. In the eventa first reply is filed wthin TWO MONTHSofthe
`mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the
`THREE-MONTHshortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire
`on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a)
`wil be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, wil the
`statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHSfrom the date ofthis final action.
`10.—Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from ine
`
`examiner should be directed to LUIS PEREZ-FUENTES(iis
`ay)
`whose telephone numberis (571) 270 -1168. The examiner‘canPnormally‘be eached:on
`Monday-Friday 8am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccesstul,
`the examiner's supervisor, WILLIAM VAUGHNcanbe reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax
`phone numberfor the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)
`272 -3922. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent
`Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published Applic. may
`be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished
`applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR
`system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on accessto the Private
`PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If
`you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the
`automated information system, call (800) 786 -9199 (USA OR CANADA)or (571) 272 -1000.
`
`/LUIS PEREZ-FUENTES/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481.
`
`