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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
As a preliminary matter, none of the Responses submitted to date have addressed the outstanding rejection to independent claim 70, which is maintained.
In regard to the arguments of the instant Response of 6/25/2026 that the primary Wang reference fails to disclose the amended claim features of wherein at least one of the width or the height of the asymmetrical partition of the image block is not a power of two, the secondary Lim reference teaches the same: namely, the last two exemplar block partitions of Figure 38 are identical to the block partitions illustrated in Figure 15 of the instant application as showing the asymmetrical partition ... is not a power of two. Therefore the claims are rendered obvious by Lim on face.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 70 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang (US 2022/0286684).
Regarding independent claim 70, the recitation of “A non-transitory program storage device having encoded data representative of an image block generated according to a method 68.” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the image block and the process is the method steps to generate the image block. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the image block.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the image block in claim 70 merely services as a support for the storage of the block and provides no functional relationship between the stored block and storage medium. Therefor the structure bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data such as a pixel block and is identically disclosed by Wang illustrating an image block for storage. (shown Figure 11, block of pixels and values thereof may be stored)
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.
Claim(s) 59-69 and 71-73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Lim (US 2022/0264151).
Regarding claim 59, Wang discloses a method for decoding an image block, (paragraph 0007, decoding a current block of an image) the method comprising: determining a width of an asymmetrical partition of the image block and a height of the asymmetrical partition of the image block, wherein the width of the asymmetrical partition of the image block and the height of the asymmetrical partition of the image block are unequal; (paragraph 0069 in conjunction with Figure 7, a rectangular block) determining a wide angular intra prediction mode for the image block from a set of wide angular intra prediction modes (paragraph 0142, modes 61-66 are converted to wide angle intra prediction modes, and one of same is used for prediction) based on the width and the height of the asymmetrical partition of the image block; (tautology, necessarily block size implicates mode selection; paragraphs 0165/0166, block size used as conditional for prediction mode selection) determining a reference array used in intra prediction based on the width and the height of the asymmetrical partition of the image block, wherein the reference array comprises a set of pixels; (paragraph 0142, reference samples which are a set of pixels are interpreted as the same) and decoding the image block (paragraph 0395, decoding performed per disclosure) using the determined wide angular intra prediction mode and the determined reference array. (paragraph 0142, reference samples and selected wide angle mode used for coding)
Wang fails to identically disclose wherein at least one of the width or the height of the asymmetrical partition of the image block is not a power of two.
However, Lim teaches wherein at least one of the width or the height of the asymmetrical partition of the image block is not a power of two as recited. (Figure 38, last two exemplar block partitions are identical to the block partitions illustrated in Figure 15 of the specification as showing the asymmetrical partition ... is not a power of two.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that block partitioning is not limited to a value of two because Lim teaches a block partitioning flow in which a square block is flexibly partitioned to not be limited to a power of two size before the effective filing date of the instant application, and thus flexible block partitioning as recited would have been known to one of skill in the art per Lim before the effective filing date. (Figure 38)
Independent claims 63, 66 and 71 recite features similar to claim 59, and are rendered obvious by Wang and Lim for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 60, Wang discloses wherein the wide angular intra prediction mode allows an intra prediction angle value beyond a range of 180 degree from 45 degree to -135 degree. (paragraph 0142, VVC ranges from 45 to -135 degrees, with widening, the angle spread will be even greater)
Dependent claims 64, 62 and 72 recite features similar to claim 60, and are disclosed by Wang for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 61, Wang discloses decoding at least one syntax data element related to enabling the wide angular intra prediction mode. (paragraph 0121, syntax transmitted to communicate the prediction mode and aspects thereof)
Wang fails to identically disclose from one of a slice header, a picture parameter set, and a sequence parameter set.
However, Lim teaches from one of a slice header, a picture parameter set, and a sequence parameter set. (paragraphs 525-527, PPS or SPS used to signal decoding syntax to decoder)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that PPS or SPS sections may be used to communicate syntax because PPS and SPS were allocated to communicate syntax information, and as such to use PPS and SPS for signaling according to their intended purposes would be well known and understood by those of skill in the art before the effective filing date as evinced by Lim.
Claims 65, 68 and 73 are dependent claims reciting features similar to those of claim 61, and are therefore also rendered obvious by the combination of Wang and Lim.
Regarding claim 62, claim 62 is an independent computer program product claim referencing the features of claim 59, and is therefore rendered obvious by Wang and Lim for reasons similar to claim 59. Wang also discloses the further features of a non-transitory program storage device, readable by a computer, tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable by the computer for performing the method. (paragraph 396, method program loaded on non-transitory storage)
Independent claim 69 recites features similar to claim 62, and is also rendered obvious by Wang and Lim for similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lainema (US 2019/0356909) implicates wide angle prediction.
Zhao (US 2021/0014508) implicates wide angle prediction.
Zhao (US 2020/0021799) implicates wide angle prediction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER whose telephone number is (303)297-4401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-6 MT.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571 272 2988. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2485
/JAYANTI K PATEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2485
August 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights