DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 18 December 2025, with respect to claims 1, 10, and 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1, 10, and 19 have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim 19 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. In particular, the claimed invention refers to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a bitstream for a video sequence. The preamble of the claimed invention may relate to a video sequence that is decoded. However, it only indicates the non-transitory computer readable medium stores the bitstream “for a video decoded by performing operations”. The bitstream has no functional relationship with the claimed non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The claim scope (in light of the specification) describes the relationship of the contents of the bitstream in terms of how it could be decoded to create video information, however there is no functional relationship between the contents of the information in the bitstream and the storage of that bitstream of the medium. Because of this, it is unclear how the non-transitory computer readable medium relates to a “comprised” bitstream that is decoded. The claim language does not make it clear whether the non-transitory computer readable medium contains the instructions to perform the video decoding method or not. Additionally, the steps are not claimed to specify whether any of the data (in the bitstream comprised in the non-transitory computer readable medium) are the contents of the bitstream. The claims of the non-transitory computer readable medium merely stores the bitstream that is decoded using the decoding recited in the body the claim. In this case, the contents of the bitstream are implied by the process and are non-functional descriptive language because they are describing what is the contents of the information of the bitstream. See MPEP §2111.05. For the reasons above, the limitations of claim 19 are considered indefinite.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In regard to claim 19, claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein a bitstream generated by acts. Significantly, the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium is NOT implementing any actual method; no instructions/steps are being executed. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data output from and/or generated by a series of acts. In other words, these claims are directed to a mere machine-readable medium storing data content (a bitstream generated by a method).
Applicant therefore seeks to patent the storage of a bitstream in the abstract. In other words, the claim seeks to patent the content of the information (bitstream comprising video information) and not the process itself. Moreover, this stored bitstream does not impose any definitive physical organization on the data as there is no functional relationship between the bitstream and the storage medium. In conclusion, claim 19 are directed to mere data content (bitstream generated by a series of acts) stored as a bitstream on a computer-readable storage medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, the Examiner found and continues to find that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, this claim is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. Therefore, claim 19 is anticipated by Li; Xiang et al. (US 10742972 B1), as Li et al. discloses a bitstream for a video sequence decoded.
Li discloses,
A non-transitory computer-readable medium (34:29-59, “computer-readable media can be media associated with user-accessible mass storage” that are of non-transitory nature) comprising a bitstream for a video sequence decoded (31:27-48,9:46-67, and fig. 18, “processing circuitry that performs functions of the video decoder (310)” to generate a prediction block for the block under reconstruction such that “decoder (533) reconstructs the symbols to create the sample data” of “coded video bit stream”) by performing operations (34:29-59, “core (1940) can provide functionality as a result of processor(s) (including CPUs, GPUs, FPGA, accelerators, and the like) executing software embodied in one or more tangible, computer-readable media”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 and 10 are allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claimed invention relates to obtaining a maximum number of geometric partitioning merge mode candidates. In order to obtain this number, the techniques obtain a bitstream for a video sequence, parses a first indicator representing a maximum number of merge motion vector prediction (MVP) candidates, and parses a second indicator representing whether geometric partition based motion compensation is enabled. The claimed invention arranges three separate conditions related to the parsed first and second indicators.
A first condition relates to where the first indicator indicates the maximum number of merging MVP candidates is greater than two and the second indicator indicates geometric partition based motion compensation is enabled. The first condition results in parsing a third indicator representing a maximum number of geometric partitioning merge mode candidates subtracted from the first indicator.
A second condition relates to where the first indicator indicates the maximum number of merging MVP candidates is equal to two and the second indicator indicates geometric partition based motion compensation is enabled. The second condition results in setting the maximum number of geometric partitioning merge mode candidates to 2.
A third condition relates to where the first indicator indicates the maximum number of merging MVP candidates is less than two or the second indicator indicates geometric partition based motion compensation is disabled. The third condition results in setting the maximum number of geometric partitioning merge mode candidates to 0.
The prior art of record is capable of teaching some form of at least the first and third condition above and their respective results. However, what is unique to this invention relates to the second condition. Namely, the condition is specific in how it relates to passing the maximum number of merging MVP candidates when the maximum number of merging MVP candidates equals to two when geometric partition based motion compensation is enabled, which essentially settles/maintains the maximum number of merging MVP candidates when it’s value is set to 2, based on the condition. At best, upon review of the claimed invention as it is claimed, the collected data found in Draft 8 of a Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) meeting on the topic of Versatile Video Coding held 7-17 January 2020 has a disclosure which resembles the conditions claimed. Versatile Video Coding (Draft 8) on indexed page 109 related 7.4.3.3 Sequence Parameter Set RBSP Semantics that defines “max_num_merge_cand_ minus_max_num_gpm_cand” as specifying the maximum number of geometric partitioning merge mode candidates. The section also outlines a set of coded conditions which are similar to what is claimed that could teach the claimed set of condition. However, the condition of the prior art’s publication date does not clearly specify this disclosure as prior art. Additionally, the disclosure is itself a compilation of data which includes the work of some inventors of the instant application. This means that while the disclosure may read on the claimed invention, it cannot be used to teach the claimed invention. For these reasons, the examiner considers this particular condition as unique to this claimed invention and is therefore allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10AM-8PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph G. Ustaris can be reached at (571) 272-7383. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH G USTARIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2483
/JIMMY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2483