DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on September 24, 2025. Claims 1, 7, 13-14, and 21-32 are pending and are examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments made to claims 1, 7, 13, and 14 have been fully considered.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments and amendments received September 24, 2025 have been fully considered.
With regard to 35 U.S.C. § 102, Applicant argues that claims 13 and 14 have been amended to comprise newly added features that provide a functional relationship between the processor, the method, and the non-transitory computer-readable medium. However, as indicated below, these claims, as amended, are subject to a 35 U.S.C. §112 rejection as it is not clear how an encoding method “generates” a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. Encoding of a data stream does not, in and of itself, “generate” such a recording medium. These claims still also do not provide a computer-readable medium that serves as anything more than support for information or data (e.g., the bitstream, or a “method” purporting to generate the medium itself). The claims provide no functional relationship between the storage medium and the information or data itself and the information or data is thus not given patentable weight. See the 112 and 102 rejections below for further details.
With regard to 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to disclose that the target block is comprised in a first region of two or more tiles – meaning the region is not a tile, but a different entity composed to include tiles – and fails to disclose that “the availability of the temporal candidate block is set to false in a case where the temporal candidate block is outside a boundary of a first region”, which includes two or more tiles. This language corresponds to the newly amended language of claims 1, 7, 13, and 14.
As such, these have been considered but they are directed to newly amended language, which is addressed below. See the rejection below for how the cited prior art reads on the newly amended language as well as the examiner's interpretation of the cited art in view of the presented claim set.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 7, 13-14, and 21-32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Firstly, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The amended claims recite that “the target block is comprised in a first region” and then states that “the availability of the temporal candidate block is set to false in a case that the temporal candidate block is out of a boundary of the first region.”
A temporal candidate, would have been and still is widely understood by those of the level of skill in the art to be a candidate from a previously coded frame, i.e., by definition, it is not included in the same frame as the current/target block (see Applicant’s Specification ¶227). If it were within the same frame as the current block, it would be termed a “spatial candidate” rather than a “temporal candidate” (see Applicant’s Specification ¶226). Applicant recites that the temporal candidate block is unavailable if it is “out of boundary of the first region.” As detailed above, in its amendment, Applicant defines the “first region” as containing the “target block”. However, because the temporal candidate and current/target block will always be in different frames, every temporal candidate would fail this test. In other words, it is impossible for a true “temporal candidate” to be within the boundaries of the same “first region” as the current/target block.
In consulting the specification, Applicant’s defines “region” as a slice, tile, or MCTS (see Applicant’s Specification ¶577). Applicant has made clear in its response that the amendment is to ensure that the region must contain multiple tiles. In other words, Applicant has limited region to being a slice or MCTS. To one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, both the terms “slice” and “MCTS” would have been understood to be a region within a single picture/frame (see Applicant’s Specification Figs. 12-15, ¶¶390-392, 418, 422, describing that a slice “partitions units of a picture” and that the MCTS is a set of tiles that limits the range to a region “in a picture”). Accordingly, it is likewise impossible that a true “temporal candidate” will ever be in the same MCTS or slice as the current/target block. Accordingly, the amended limitation is indefinite.
The only support found in Applicant’s Specification for an availability/boundary check regarding a temporal candidate describes checking for availability in general or merely describes an undefined “boundary” or “region” within the reference block (see Applicant’s Specification ¶¶328-335, 343, 366, 481, 492, 497, 506-507, 576, 578). Accordingly, for the purposes of this Action, in light of the specification, it is presumed that the two regions (one containing the target/current block and one containing the temporal candidate) are different and that the limitation “the availability of the temporal candidate block is set to false in a case that the temporal candidate is out of boundary of the first region” means “the availability of the temporal candidate block is set to false in a case that the temporal candidate is out of boundary of a second region”.
Claims 13-14, 22, and 26 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Specifically, these claims, as amended, recite “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream generated by a processor performing [a] method [] to generate the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium…”.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” in independent claims 13-14 is used by the claim to mean something that can be generated by the described coding method. Coding/Encoding/Decoding is not understood to “generate [a] non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” – rather coding/encoding/decoding is understood to encode/decode a bitstream for storing on an existing medium, e.g., memory. It is not understood to generate the medium itself. Accordingly, this phrase is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 13-14, 22, 26, and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0245059 (“Terada”).
With respect to claims 13-14, 22, and 26, patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” Id. However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. Id. Claims 13-14, 22, and 26 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream and describe various information about how the bitstream is generated (claim 13) or of a method which purports to generate a “computer-readable medium” (claim 14), but does not. These elements or steps are not performed by an intended computer and the bitstream is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for the bitstream/method and provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the generation of the bitstream and execution by the intended computer system. Therefore, those claim elements are not given patentable weight. Thus the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Terada which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (see ¶356-357, 370).
With respect to claims 30-32, patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” Id. However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. Id.
Claims 30-32 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program instructions and describing those instructions. These elements or steps are not performed by an intended computer or processor. In other words, Applicant seeks to patent the storage of a program in the abstract and the medium merely serves as a support or carrier for the data being stored. The described program does not impose any definitive physical organization of data and there is no functional relationship between the program and the storage medium described. This shows that the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for the instructions. The medium provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the transmission of a bitstream and any intended computer system. Therefore, those claim elements are not given patentable weight. Thus the claim scope is just a storage medium storing computer program instructions and is anticipated by Terada which recites a storage medium storing instructions (see ¶356-357, 370).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, notwithstanding 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 manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7, 21, 23-25, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada in view of Recommendation, “H.265: High Efficiency Video Coding.” ITU-T, April 2013 (pp. 1-317) (“H.265”).
With respect to claim 1, Terada discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including
A decoding method (see Abstract, Title, describing a decoder for preforming a decoding method), comprising:
generating a merge list for a target block in a current picture (see ¶241, describing generating a MV list for the merge mode, i.e., merge list, for a current/target block);
determining first motion information of the target block using the merge list and a merge index (see citations above and ¶242, describing that the MV/merge list and a MV index may be used to determine a specified prediction MV, i.e., first motion information of the target block); and
performing inter prediction for the target block using the first motion information of the target block (see citations above and ¶¶178-180, describing using the prediction MV, i.e., first motion information of the target block, to perform inter prediction for the target block), wherein
…
the merge index indicates a selected merge candidate for the inter prediction for the target block among merge candidates in the merge list (see citations with respect to elements above, describing the use of an MV index, i.e., merge index, indicating a selected merge/MV candidate for inter prediction of the target block among MV/merge candidates in the MV/merge list),
the target block is comprised in a first region (see citations and arguments with respect to elements above, and Figs. 1A, 1B, showing that the target block may be in a first region that includes two or more tiles, e.g., it is in a region of the 4 tiles together or a region of the tiles on top, or a region of the tiles on the right; see also ¶¶112, 277, 323, 344, describing that such blocks may be part of a slice),
the first region comprises two or more tiles among the plurality of tiles (see citations with respect to element above),
whether to add second motion information of each of spatial candidate blocks in the current picture to the merge list as a merge candidate is determined (see ¶¶245-246, 271, 301, 303-304, describing determining whether to add second motion information of spatial candidate blocks in the current picture to the merge list as merge candidates),
whether to add third motion information of a temporal candidate block in a reconstrued collocated picture of the current picture to the merge candidate list as a merge candidate is determined based on an availability of the temporal candidate block (see ¶¶183-18245-246, 252, 256-260, 265, describing that the system determines whether to add temporal candidate motion information to the merge/MV list depending on its availability),
the third motion information of the temporal candidate block indicates a bi-directional prediction (see ¶114, 116, 306, describing that these temporal MV candidates may be bi-predictive, i.e., may indicate bi-directional prediction, or that such may be prohibited),
the third motion information of the temporal candidate block is added to the merge list as a merge candidate in a case that the availability of the temporal candidate block is true (see citations and arguments with respect to claim elements above, describing that the motion information of the temporal candidate block may be added only when its availability is true),
the third motion information of the temporal candidate block is not added to the merge list as a merge candidate in a case that the availability of the temporal candidate block is false (see citations and arguments with respect to claim elements above, describing that the motion information of the temporal candidate block may not be added when its availability is false),
the availability of the temporal candidate block is set to false in a case that the temporal candidate block is out of a boundary of [a second] region (see citations and arguments with respect to claim elements above and Figs. 1A-1B, ¶¶65-67, describing that the temporal candidate block may only be used where it is in the same tile as that of the target block, e.g., Tile 2 of Fig. 1B, even in an image at a different time point (FRAME(t-1)), and not where it is in a different tile as that of the target block, e.g., as shown in Fig. 1A, i.e., the temporal candidate is not available - its availability is set to false, when it is out of boundary of the co-located region/tile, i.e., a second region),
a location of the temporal candidate block is determined based on a location of the target block (see citations and arguments with respect to elements above and Fig. 1B, ¶67, describing that the location of the temporal candidate may be based on a location of the target block – i.e., it must be within the same tile in the previously decoded image),
the temporal candidate block is a reconstructed block comprising a reference pixel in a reconstructed collocated picture of the current picture (see citation above and ¶¶140, 178, 183, showing and describing that the temporal candidate block is a reconstructed reference image at a different time point, in a reconstructed collocated picture of the current picture),
…
Although Terada details dividing the image into tiles, it does not explicitly disclose the tile structure or the syntax sent to indicate tile size/spacing. Specifically, it does not disclose wherein number information is obtained from a bitstream, the number information indicates the number of a plurality of tiles included in the current picture, a first flag is obtained from the bitstream, a value of the first flag indicates whether sizes of the plurality of tiles are the same or not, widths of the plurality of tiles are the same in a case that the value of the first flag is a first value, heights of the plurality of tiles are the same in a case that the value of the first flag is the first value, additional information is obtained from the bitstream in a case that the value of the first flag is a second value, the additional information is used to define a width of each of the plurality of tiles in units of Coding Tree Units (CTUs), the additional information is used to define a height of each of the plurality of tiles in units of CTUs, an x-coordinate of the reference pixel is a sum of an x-coordinate of the target block and a width of the target block, and a y-coordinate of the reference pixel is a sum of a y-coordinate of the target block and a height of the target block.
However, in the same field of endeavor, H.265 discloses that it was known to send such tile structure details via syntax, namely:
number information is obtained from a bitstream (see Section 7.3.2.3, describing that if tiles are enabled “num_tile_columns_minus1” and “num_tile_rows_minus1” are sent),
the number information indicates a number of a plurality of tiles included in the current picture (see citations above and Section 7.4.3.3, describing that the number information includes the number of tile columns and rows and that these variables specify the number of tile columns and rows the picture is partitioned into, i.e., indicates a number of a plurality of tiles in the current picture),
a first flag is obtained from the bitstream (see Section 7.3.2.3, describing checking a uniform_spacing_flag, i.e., a first flag is obtained from the bitstream),
a value of the first flag indicates whether sizes of the plurality of tiles are the same or not (see citation above and Section 7.4.3.3, describing that the uniform spacing flag indicates whether the tile and row column boundaries are distributed uniformly across the picture, i.e., whether sizes of the plurality of tiles are the same or not),
widths of the plurality of tiles are the same in a case that the value of the first flag is a first value (see citations with respect to elements above, describing that where uniform spacing flag is 1, i.e., a first value, the columns and rows of tiles are spaced uniformly, i.e., the widths and heights of the plurality of tiles are the same),
heights of the plurality of tiles are the same in a case that the value of the first flag is the first value (see citation with respect to element above),
additional information is obtained from the bitstream in a case that the value of the first flag is a second value (see Sections 7.3.2.3 and 7.4.3.3, describing that where uniform_spacing_flag is 0, i.e., a second value, column_width_minus1 and column_height_minus1 are obtained, i.e., additional information is obtained from the bitstream),
the additional information is used to define a width of each of the plurality of tiles in units of Coding Tree Units (CTUs) (see citations above and definitions 3.154-3.157, describing that this additional information defines a width and height of the tile in units of coding tree blocks, i.e., CTUs),
the additional information is used to define a height of each of the plurality of tiles in units of CTUs (see citation with respect to element above),
…
an x-coordinate of the reference pixel is a sum of an x-coordinate of the target block and a width of the target block (see Sections 6.4.2, 8.5.3.2.7, showing and describing that it was known to find a co-located reference block/motion vector, i.e., x and y coordinates of inter prediction reference pixels, by summing the width and height of the block (nPbW, nPbH) respectively with the x and y coordinates of the block (xPb, yPb) ), and
a y-coordinate of the reference pixel is a sum of a y-coordinate of the target block and a height of the target block (see citations and arguments with respect to element above).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with the current video coding standards and of the use of tiles and of the identification of collocated blocks in such standards. Such a person, would thus, have been familiar with the H.265 video coding standard, including its use of tiles and signaling of tile information as well as its definitions of and identification of collocated blocks for inter prediction in a reference image (or reference images for bi-prediction). These standards, as “standards” applicable at the time would have been expected to be operable in any widely used video coding system, and thus the usage of the syntax and definitions in such standards would have been understood to be commercially beneficial at the time of filing. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to include the tile division syntax of the H.265 standard as well as the identification of co-located blocks taught in the H.265 standard in order to obtain this advantage. Moreover, to such a person, doing so would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include mechanisms for signaling tile division information as described in the claim language and for identifying co-located blocks for inter prediction in the video coding system of Terada as taught by H.265.
With respect to claim 7, Terada discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Terada in view of H.265 discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Terada/H.265 additionally discloses:
An encoding method (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above and Terada Abstract, Title, Fig. 4, and ¶¶65, 91, 93, 274, describing that the methods described may be employed by an encoder or a decoder with identical methods/candidates on each side), comprising:
generating a merge list for a target block in a current picture (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above); and
generating a merge index indicating a selected merge candidate corresponding to first motion information of the target block among merge candidates in the merge list (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above), wherein
number information is added to a bitstream (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
the number information indicates the number of a plurality of tiles included in the current picture (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
a first flag is added to the bitstream (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
a value of the first flag indicates whether sizes of the plurality of tiles are the same or not (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
widths of the plurality of tiles are the same in a case that the value of the first flag is a first value (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
heights of the plurality of tiles are the same in a case that the value of the first flag is the first value (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
additional information is added to the bitstream in a case that the value of the first flag is a second value (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
the additional information indicates a width of each of the plurality of tiles in units of Coding Tree Units (CTUs) (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
the additional information indicates a height of each of the plurality of tiles in units of CTUs (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
the target block is comprised in a first region (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
the first region comprises two or more tiles among the plurality of tiles (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
whether to add second motion information of each of spatial candidate blocks in the current picture to the merge list as a merge candidate is determined (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
whether to add third motion information of a temporal candidate block in a reconstructed collocated picture of the current picture to the merge candidate list as a merge candidate is determined based on an availability of the temporal candidate block (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
the third motion information of the temporal candidate block indicates a bi-directional prediction (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
the third motion information of the temporal candidate block is added to the merge list as a merge candidate in a case that the availability of the temporal candidate block is true (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
the third motion information of the temporal candidate block is not added to the merge list as a merge candidate in a case that the availability of the temporal candidate block is false (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
the availability of the temporal candidate block is set to false in a case that the temporal candidate block is out of boundary of the first region (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
a location of the temporal candidate block is determined based on a location of the target block (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above)
the temporal candidate block is a reconstructed block comprising a reference pixel in a reconstructed collocated picture of the current picture (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
an x-coordinate of the reference pixel is a sum of an x-coordinate of the target block and a width of the target block (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above), and
a y-coordinate of the reference pixel is a sum of a y-coordinate of the target block and a height of the target block (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above.
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 7.
With respect to claim 21, Terada discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Terada in view of H.265 discloses all the elements of independent claim 7. Terada/H.265 additionally discloses:
wherein the third motion information of the temporal candidate block comprises L0 motion vector and L1 motion vector, and
the L0 motion vector and the L1 motion vector of the third motion information of the temporal candidate block is added to the list in a case that it is determined that the third motion information of the temporal candidate block is added to the merge list as a merge candidate (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 7 above and Terada ¶309, describing that in bi-directional prediction two reference lists, L0 and L1 may be used and H.265, Sections 8.5.3.2.1 which makes clear that in bi-prediction, both the L0 and L1 motion vectors are added to the list as merge candidates).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 21.
With respect to claim 23, Terada discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Terada in view of H.265 discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Terada/H.265 additionally discloses:
wherein the third motion information of the temporal candidate block comprises L0 motion vector and L1 motion vector, and
the L0 motion vector and the L1 motion vector of the third motion information of the temporal candidate block is added to the list in a case that it is determined that the third motion information of the temporal candidate block is added to the merge list as a merge candidate (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above and corresponding element of claim 21 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claims 1 and 21 also apply to claim 21.
With respect to claim 24, Terada discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Terada in view of H.265 discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Terada/H.265 additionally discloses:
wherein the temporal candidate block is diagonally adjacent to a bottom-right corner of a corresponding block in the reconstructed collocated picture, and
a second region of the corresponding block in the reconstructed collocated picture corresponds to a third region of the target block in a target picture (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above, describing that the collocated block may be located at (xP+nPbW, yP+nPbH), i.e., diagonally adjacent to a bottom-right corner of the corresponding block in the reconstructed collocated picture, and that this region of this corresponding/collocated block corresponds to same tile/third region in the target picture).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 24.
With respect to claim 25, Terada discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Terada in view of H.265 discloses all the elements of independent claim 7. Terada/H.265 additionally discloses:
wherein the temporal candidate block is diagonally adjacent to a bottom-right corner of a corresponding block in the reconstructed collocated picture, and
a second region of the corresponding block in the reconstructed collocated picture corresponds to a third region of the target block in a target picture (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 7 above and corresponding element of claim 24 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 25.
With respect to claim 27, claim 27 recites the method of claim 7 including the sending of a bitstream comprising the syntax information. The citations provided with respect to claims 1 and 7 clearly recite the transmission of such a bitstream sent from the encoder to the decoder. Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 7 also applies to claim 27.
With respect to claim 28, claim 28 recites the method of claim 21 including the sending of a bitstream comprising the syntax information. The citations provided with respect to claims 7 and 21 clearly recite the transmission of such a bitstream sent from the encoder to the decoder. Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claims 7 and 21 also applies to claim 28.
With respect to claim 29, claim 29 recites the method of claim 25 including the sending of a bitstream comprising the syntax information. The citations provided with respect to claims 7 and 25 clearly recite the transmission of such a bitstream sent from the encoder to the decoder. Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claims 7 and 25 also applies to claim 29.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0343663 which also details limiting the availability of candidates based on its presence within a boundary, e.g., a co-located slice boundary (see Fig. 17).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY JANE KILE UHL whose telephone number is (571)270-0337. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications 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 access to 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 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LINDSAY J UHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481