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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/11/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
As a preliminary matter, the disclosure and enablement rejections are removed, and a new rejection rejecting the claims as failing to recite the subject matter of the invention is issued. See below. As discussed in the Examiner Interview of November 20, 2025, the invention of the Specification is directed to using a classification model that is based on deep learning for generating merge lists as borne out in the BACKGROUND and SUMMARY sections. And therefore removing the classification model features from the claims due to the previous enablement and disclosure rejections mean the claims no longer recite the invention of the Specification, and are rejected as failing to recite the invention specified by the Specification.
Turning now to the argumentation regarding the 102 and 103 rejections, as before, the characterization of the cited art is rejected as mendacious. First, the independent claims now merely claim generating a merge list, which is identically disclosed by He as shown in the preceding claim mapping, and again in the mapping below. Thus the argumentation regarding the primary He reference is again rejected.
Finally, in regard to arguments provided with regard to the Xu reference, He is applied for the mere tautology of wherein the plurality of merge lists differs from each other in orders of merge candidates, so it cannot be understood why Xu is argued instead of He. And since the recited feature is mere tautology, the arguments in regard to Xu are rejected as fallacious. The rejections are maintained.
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 1-5, 10-14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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. Evidence that claims 1-5, 10-14, 16 and 17 fail(s) to correspond in scope with that which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA applications the applicant regards as the invention can be found in the reply filed 5/2/2025. In that paper, the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA applications the applicant has stated claim 1 recites "generating an index specifying one of a plurality of merge list types by inputting the at least one data array to a pre-trained classification model.", and this statement indicates that the invention is different from what is defined in the claim(s) because previously the inventive nub of the claims was using a classification model that is based on deep learning for generating merge lists as borne out in the BACKGROUND and SUMMARY sections, and throughout Specification, but now, due to lack of enablement and disclosure rejections, merely generating a merge list generically is claimed. And thus the claims no longer correspond to the invention.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10, 11, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by He (US 2018/0199052).
Regarding claim 1, He discloses a method performed by a video decoding apparatus for predicting a current block, (Abstract, coding method in which a merge list for predicting the current block is derived) the method comprising: obtaining encoding information of adjacent blocks that include spatially adjacent blocks to the current block and include temporally adjacent blocks to the current block, (paragraph 0029 in conjunction with paragraph 0036, inter and intra blocks adjacent the current block and associated coding information such as motion vectors determined) the encoding information of the adjacent blocks including at least one of motion information of the adjacent blocks or prediction information of the adjacent blocks; (paragraph 0019, motion vectors of blocks in search range around current block put in list of candidate motion vectors) determining, from a plurality of merge lists, a merge list of the current block based on the encoding information of the adjacent blocks; (paragraphs 0046/0047, list of candidate blocks and associated motion vectors based on trimming redundant blocks/motion vectors) obtaining an index indicating one of candidates in the merge list from a bitstream; (paragraph 0019, current motion vector for block obtained from bitstream) and predicting the current block using encoding information of a candidate indicated by the index, (paragraph 0019, current block predicted from associated motion vector) wherein the plurality of merge lists differs from each other in orders of merge candidates. (interpreted as mere tautology-namely that different block have different merge lists, paragraph 0052, merge list determined for current block in iterative order, and as such different block have different merge lists)
Independent claims 11 and 17 are encoding claims reciting features similar to claim 1, and because decoding and encoding as disclosed are inverted symmetric processes, (paragraph 0018) are therefore also anticipated by He for reasons similar to claim 1. To any extent that it could be argued the mapping of claim 1 falls short of identically disclosing encoding features of claim 11 and 17, He identically discloses encoding an index indicating the candidate in the merge list. (paragraph 0018, explicitly encoding the current selected motion vector in bitstream)
Regarding claim 2, He discloses wherein the encoding information of the current block comprises position information and reference picture information of the current block and the encoding information of the adjacent blocks comprises a motion vector and reference picture information of the adjacent blocks, when inter prediction of the current block is performed. (shown Figure 1, paragraph 0036, inter prediction includes vector to reference picture block and includes relative position information)
Regarding claim 10, He discloses wherein the plurality of merge lists are generated based on different predefined rules according to merge list types. (paragraph 0018, merge list derived based on trimming redundant candidates per merge list requirements)
Dependent claim 16 is a method claim reciting features similar to claim 10, and is therefore also anticipated by He for reasons similar to claim 10.
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) 3, 4, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Zhao (US 2022/0078423).
In regard to claim 3, He fails to identically disclose the recited; however, Zhao teaches wherein the spatially adjacent blocks comprise left reference blocks including all or some of a bottom-left block, an above block of the bottom-left block, a top-left block, or a below block of the top-left block, and including all or some of intermediate blocks between the block at above block of the bottom-left block and the below block of the top-left block. (paragraph 0133, shown Figure 9, left reference samples)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that intra samples may be positioned relative to the current block, because such sampling was used and notoriously well known at the time of the effective filing date by those of skill in the art as evinced by Zhao.
In regard to claim 4, He fails to identically disclose the recited; however, Zhao teaches wherein the spatially adjacent blocks comprise top reference blocks including all or some of a top-right block, a left block of the top-right block, a top-left block, or a right block of the top-left block, and including all or some of intermediate blocks between the block at left block of the top-right block and the block at right block of the top-left block. (paragraph 0133, shown Figure 9, top reference samples)
Same rationale for combining and motivation as per claim 3 above.
Dependent claims 12 and 13 are method claims reciting features similar to claims 3 and 4, respectively, and are therefore also anticipated by He for reasons similar to claims 3 and 4, respectively.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Xu (US 2020/0236384).
In regard to claim 5, He fails to identically disclose the recited; however, Xu teaches wherein the temporally adjacent blocks comprise a bottom right block and a central block of a block that is co-located with the current block in a reference picture of the current block. (shown Figure 10, paragraph 0116, temporal blocks C1 at bottom right and C0 at center)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that inter samples may be temporally located relative to the current block, because such sampling was used and notoriously well known at the time of the effective filing date by those of skill in the art as evinced by Xu.
Dependent claim 14 is a method claim reciting features similar to claim 5, and is therefore also rendered obvious by Xu combined with He for reasons similar to claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Joshi (US 10,848,765) implicates using machine learning for merge list coding type selection as disclosed in the instant application.
Kang (US 2021/0306638) provides inter/intra coding background.
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
December 7, 2025