`Reply to Office Action Dated February 18, 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. Independent claims 1, 12 and 16 are amended. No new matter has been added to
`
`the application.
`
`IDS
`
`Submitted herewith is a supplemental IDS citing U.S. 2018/0109812 A1-Tsai (“Tsai”),
`
`which wasrelied uponin the office action but wasnotlisted in PTO-892 form received with the
`
`office action. Acknowledgementof Tsai for the record 1s respectfully requested.
`
`Title Objection is Overcome
`
`Thetitle was objected to for not clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims
`
`are directed. A new title is submitted herewith to overcomethe objection.
`
`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-Tsai et al (“Tsai”) in view of US 20170006309 A1-Liu et al (“Liu”).
`
`Claims 10-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai and Liu, in
`
`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. Support for the amendmentis found,
`
`for example, in 7][0173]-[0183] and FIG. 16 of the application asfiled.
`
`Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:
`
`Claim 1. An image decoder comprising:
`
`circuitry; and
`
`a memory coupledto the circuitry;
`
`wherein the circuitry, in operation:
`
`
`
`Application No. 16/874,037
`Reply to Office Action Dated February 18, 2021
`
`performs a first partitioning including usinga first partition mode, without parsing first
`
`splitting information indicative of the first partition mode, to split a first block into a plurality of
`
`second blocks, wherein the first block is one of a plurality of first blocks split from a picture;
`
`determines whether a second block, whichis one of the plurality of second blocks, is
`
`located adjacent to an edge of the picture and whether dimensionsof the second block satisfy a
`
`second condition:
`
`performs a secondpartitioning on the second block by parsing secondsplitting
`
`information indicative of a second partition mode and using the second partition modeto split
`
`the second block into a plurality of coding units (CUs), wherein the second partition mode
`
`prohibits a quadtree 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
`
`decodesthe plurality of CUs.
`
`(Emphases added.)
`
`Specifically, independent claims 1, 12 and 16 require:
`
`- determining whethera secondblock, whichis one ofthe plurality of second blocks,is
`
`located adjacent to an edge of the picture and whether dimensions of the second blocksatisfy a
`
`second condition; and
`
`-performing a secondpartitioning on the second block ... wherein the second partition
`
`mode prohibits a quadtree splitting of the second block in responseto that the second blockis
`
`located adjacent to the edge of the picture and that the dimensions of the secondblocksatisfy the
`
`second condition determining.
`
`For example, as shownin FIG. 16 and 4§][0173]&[0179] reproduced below,it is
`
`determined whether a second blockis “located adjacent to an edge of the picture” (see “hatched
`
`blocks” 1603 located adjacent to the edge ofthe picture in FIG. 16), andit is further determined
`
`whether dimensions of the second block satisfy a second condition (e.g.,
`
`the second block has a
`
`rectangular shape, see claim 7.) A quadtree splitting is prohibited based on both the
`
`determination that the second block is located adjacent to the edge of the picture and the
`
`determination that the dimensionsof the second blocksatisfy the second condition.
`
`
`
`Application No. 16/874,037
`Reply to Office Action Dated February 18, 2021
`
` OORO
`
`[0173] VARIATION 2 OF EMBODIMENT1
`
`Next, Variation 2 of Embodiment 1 will be described. The present
`variation differs from the above-described Embodiment1 and Variation | thereof
`in that a quadtree splitting is prohibited in rectangular CTUsor rectangular
`blocks in the second partitioning. Hereinafter, the present variation is described
`in detail with reference to FIGS. 15 and 16 by mainly focusing on the points
`different from the above-described Embodiment | and Variation 1 thereof.
`
`[0179] In the present example, a quadtree splitting in the secondpartitioning1s
`prohibited for rectangular CTUs(hatched blocks) 1603 that are in contact with the
`
`10
`
`
`
`Application No. 16/874,037
`Reply to Office Action Dated February 18, 2021
`
`edge of picture 1601. On the other hand, a quadtree splitting in the second
`partitioning may be allowedto be performed on rectangular CTUs(not indicated
`in the drawing) that are not in contact with the edge of picture 1601.
`
`The subject matter now more particularly recited in claims 1, 12 and 16 is not taught or
`
`suggested by Tsai, Liu, or Son, alone or in any combination. In particular, none of Tsai, Liu and
`
`Son teaches or suggests determining “whether a second block, which is one ofthe plurality of
`
`secondblocks, is located adjacent to an edge of the picture and whether dimensionsof the
`
`secondblock satisfy a second condition,” nor using such determination as a basis for determining
`
`whether a quadtree splitting is prohibited or not, as explicitly recited in claims 1, 12 and 16.
`
`While Tsai, in [0073] describes “if the current CU size is not larger than 16x16, only BT is
`
`used,” Tsai is silent as to determining “whether a second block, whichis one ofthe plurality of
`
`secondblocks, is located adjacent to an edge of the picture” as now explicitly claimed.
`
`Based on the foregoing, applicant respectfully submits that claims 1, 12 and 16, as
`
`amended, are now clearly allowable over the prior art. Allowance of claims 1, 12 and 16, as well
`
`as their respective dependentclaims, is respectfully requested, and a Notice of Allowanceis
`
`earnestly solicited.
`
`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
`
`sL1jhl
`
`11
`
`