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 .
Response to Amendment
The arguments set forth in the instant Response to Office Action of 10/23/2025 are unpersuasive such that the outstanding rejections under 102/103 are maintained.
Namely the claims have been amended such that the claims implicate a rectangular partition as the asymmetrical partition of the block. Primary reference Wang has been expressly cited for such a claim interpretation and identically discloses a MxN block partition which is a rectangular partition as recited. See cited paragraph 0069 in conjunction with Figure 7, a rectangular block. Therefore, contrary to the assertions/arguments proffered, Wang continues to disclose the independent claims.
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) 59, 60, 62-64, 66, 67, 69-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang (US 2022/0286684).
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; (as above this is a rectangular block; 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)
Independent claims 63, 66 and 71 recite features similar to claim 59, and are anticipated by Wang 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 anticipated by Wang for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 62, claim 62 is an independent computer program product claim referencing the features of claim 59, and is therefore disclosed by Wang 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 anticipated by Wang for similar reasons.
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) 61, 65, 68 and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Lim (US 2022/0264151).
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.
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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
March 23, 2026