Application No. 16/874,037
`Reply to Office Action Dated August 4, 2021
`
`REMARKS
`
`Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of this application in view of the above
`
`amendments and the following remarks. Claims 1-20 will be pending upon entry of this
`
`amendment. Claims 1, 12 and 16 are amended. No new matter has been addedto the
`
`application.
`
`Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are Overcome
`
`Claims 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US
`
`20180109812 A1-Tsaiet al (“Tsai”), in view of US 20170006309 A1-Liu et al (“Liv”).
`
`Claims 10-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai in view of
`
`Liu, in further view of Patent 10721492 B2-Sonet al (“Son”).
`
`Applicant has amendedindependentclaims 1, 12 and 16, to more particularly recite the
`
`subject matter that applicant considers as their invention in a manner moreclearly
`
`distinguishable from thepriorart.
`
`In particular, claims 1, 12 and 16 now recite, among others,
`
`--prohibit[ing] a quad tree splitting of the second block in response to that the second
`
`block is located adjacent to the edge of the picture and that the dimensions of the second block
`
`satisfy the second condition, and
`
`--allow[ing] the quadtree splitting of the second bock in responseto that the second
`
`block is not located adjacent to the edge of the picture.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that Tsai, Liu and Son, alone or in any combination, do
`
`not teach or suggest the subject matter now more explicitly recited in claims 1, 12 and 16, as
`
`amended.
`
`In the office action under “Response to Arguments” the examinernoted that: “Tsai
`
`discloses in [0073], wherein if the current CU size is not larger than 16x16, only BT is used.
`
`Therefore, if only BT is used, then it would be inherent that Quadtree is prohibited regardlessif
`
`the block is located to an edge of a picture or not. Since the claim never species that the Quad
`
`tree splitting was only prohibited on the bases of a block being adjacent to the edge ofa picture,
`
`it would be obviousto one of ordinary skilled in the art that prohibiting the quad tree in a broad
`
`

`

`Application No. 16/874,037
`Reply to Office Action Dated August 4, 2021
`
`manner would includeall aspects including a block being adjacent to an edge.” (Emphasis
`
`added.)
`
`Applicant notes that claims 1, 12 and 16, as amended, now moreexplicitly recite
`
`“prohibit[ing] a quad tree splitting of the second block in response to that the second blockis
`
`located adjacent to the edge of the picture and that the dimensions of the secondblocksatisfy the
`
`second condition” and “allow[ing] the quad tree splitting of the second bock in responseto that
`
`the secondblockis not located adjacent to the edge of the picture.” Such is not taught or
`
`suggested by any of Tsai, Liu, and Son, alone or in combination.
`
`Therefore, claims 1, 12 and 16, as amended, are now believed to be clearly allowable.
`
`Allowanceof these claims as well as their respective dependent claims is respectfully requested.
`
`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
`
`/Shoko Leek/
`Shoko I. Leek
`Registration No. 43,746
`
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, Washington 98104
`Phone: (206) 622-4900 | Fax:
`
`(206) 682-6031
`
`sLijl
`8121046_1
`
`