Application No. 16/417,514
`Reply to Office Action Dated October 14, 2020
`
`REMARKS
`
`Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of this application in view of the above
`
`amendments and the following remarks. A Request for Continued Examination1s beingfiled
`
`concurrently herewith. Claims 1, 8, 14, 20, 27, 33, and 39-46 will be pending uponentry ofthis
`
`amendment. Claims 1, 8, 14, 20, 27, 33, 39, 41, 43 and 45 have been amended. Claims2-7, 9-
`
`13, 15-19, 21-26, 28-32, and 34-38 were canceled by way of previous amendment. No new
`
`matter has been addedto the application. Please see, e.g., Figures 38, 48A to 49B, and the
`
`corresponding descriptions thereof in the Specification.
`
`Interview Summary
`
`Applicant thanks Examiner Parikh for the time and courtesy extended to Applicant’s
`
`representative during brief telephone conferences on January 12, 2021 and January 14, 2021.
`
`While no agreement was reached, the Examiner’s comments were helpful and the Examiner’s
`
`efforts to expedite prosecution of this case are appreciated.
`
`Double Patenting Rejections
`
`The Examiner provisionally rejected claims 1, 8, 14, 20, 27 and 33 on the ground of
`
`nonstatutory double patenting over claims of Co-pending Application 16/417517. Claims 39-46
`
`were provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as
`
`being unpatentable over claims of co-pending Application No 16/417517, in view of US
`
`Publication Chuanget al. (US20180070110A1) (hereinafter Chuang). Since the present
`
`rejections are provisional, applicant wishes to defer addressing the present rejections until
`
`allowanceof the claims in the present application.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Application No. 16/417,514
`Reply to Office Action Dated October 14, 2020
`
`Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`The Examinerrejected claims 1, 8, 14, 20, 27, 33, and 39-46 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
`
`being unpatentable over Chuanget al. (US20180070110A1) (hereinafter Chuang). The
`
`Examiner’s rejections are respectfully traversed.
`
`Independent claim 1, as amended,recites in part as follows (with emphasis added):
`
`in responseto splitting a block of a picture into sub blocks along a single
`direction, sets one or more partition-selection parameters to a set of values,
`wherein:
`
`in responseto splitting the block into four sub blocksalong the single
`direction using first block partitioning information, each of the sub blocks having
`a samesize, sets the one or morepartition-selection parametersto a first set of
`values, the first set of values including a value indicating the block partitioning
`information is fromafirst set of block partitioning information including thefirst
`block partitioning information; and
`
`in responseto splitting the block into three sub blocksalong the single
`direction using second block partitioning information,ratios of sizes of the sub
`blocks being 1:2:1, sets the one or morepartition-selection parameters to a second
`set of values different from thefirst set of values, the second set of values
`including a value indicating the block partitioning information is from a second
`set of block partitioning information including the secondblock partitioning
`information and not including block partitioning information which corresponds
`to a split into four equal-sized sub blocks alongthe single direction;
`
`encodes the sub blocks of the block; and
`
`writes the one or more parametersinto a bit stream.
`
`Independent claims 8, 14, 20, 27 and 33, as amended,recite similar features. The
`
`Examiner points to Figures 2, 6A, 6B, 7A, 7B and 8, and the associated text at paragraphs 0045,
`
`0054-0055, 0080, 0088-0101, and 0135-0138 of Chuang. The Examiner appears to contend
`
`Chaungdisclosessplitting blocks in number of ways and in any order. Chaung appearsto
`
`disclose encoding the bitstream to indicate the splitting mode.
`
`Chaung, however, does not appearto disclose splitting a block of a picture into four sub
`
`blocks along a single direction using first block partitioning information, each of the sub blocks
`
`having a samesize, sets the one or more partition-selection parametersto a first set of values,
`
`and in responsetosplitting the block into three sub blocks alongthe single direction using
`
`11
`
`

`

`Application No. 16/417,514
`Reply to Office Action Dated October 14, 2020
`
`second block partitioning information, ratios of sizes of the sub blocks being 1:2:1, sets the one
`
`or more partition-selection parameters to a secondset of values different from the first set of
`
`values, the second set of values including a value indicating the block partitioning information is
`
`from a secondset of block partitioning information including the second block partitioning
`
`information and not including block partitioning information which correspondsto a split into
`
`four equal-sized sub blocks along the single direction, as generally recited by the independent
`
`claims as amended. The required further modifications would not have been obviousto one of
`
`skill in the art. Accordingly, the independent claims as amendedare believed to be allowable for
`
`at least these reasons.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Forat least these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests allowance of the pending claims.
`
`In the event the Examinerfinds minor informalities that can be resolved by telephone conference
`
`or if the Examinerbelieves a telephone conference would facilitate prosecution of this application,
`
`the Examiner is urged to contact Applicant’s undersigned representative by telephone at (206)
`
`622-4900 in order to expeditiously resolve prosecution of this application.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Seed Intellectual Property Law Group Lip
`
`/Timothy L. Boller/
`Timothy L. Boller
`Registration No. 47,435
`
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, Washington 98104
`Phone: (206) 622-4900 | Fax:
`
`(206) 682-6031
`
`TLBimve
`78146291
`
`12
`
`