throbber
Application No. 16/874,037
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket