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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 3, 2026 has been entered.
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) 21, 29, 32, 33, 37, 38 – 42, 46, and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chang et al (US 2020/0288175, hereafter Chang).
As per claim 21, Chang discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storing instructions which when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform an encoding method comprising:
determining whether a current block in a current picture is coded with an intra block copy (IBC) mode (¶ 248; Section 7.3.4.1; Chang shows a flag sps_ibc_enabled_flag would indicate whether the IBC mode is being used);
setting a size of an index for a candidate list of vector predictors of the current block (i) a maximum number of merge mode candidates when the current bloc is not coded with IBC mode and (ii) a maximum number of IBC candidates when the current block is coded with the IBC mode, the index having a value that does not exceed the size of index, the index indicating a vector predictor used to encode the current block (¶ 252 and 253);
PNG
media_image1.png
59
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
constructing the candidate list of vector predictors of the current block;
encoding the current block in accordance with the vector predictor from the candidate list of vector predictors; encoding the index in a video bitstream; and transmitting the encoded video bitstream (¶ 250 - 253).
As per claim 29, Chang discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein the current block is not coded with the IBC mode and the size of the index is set to the maximum number of merge mode candidates when the current block is coded with the IBC mode (¶ 250 - 253).
As per claim 30, Chang discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein the current block is coded with the IBC mode and the size of the index is set to the maximum number of IBC candidates (¶ 250 - 253)
As per claim 32, Chang discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein the video bitstream includes the maximum number of IBC candidates for the current block (¶ 253).
As per claim 33, Chang discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein the maximum number of IBC candidates is set to 6 when the maximum number of merge mode candidates is not signaled for the current block (¶ 253).
As per claim 37, Chang discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein the index is a merge index indicated by a syntax element merge_idx (¶ 168 and 169).
Regarding claim 38, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 21 are applicable for claim 38.
Regarding claim 39, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 29 are applicable for claim 39.
Regarding claim 40, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 30 are applicable for claim 40.
Regarding claim 41, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 32 are applicable for claim 41.
Regarding claim 42, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 33 are applicable for claim 42.
Regarding claim 46, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 37 are applicable for claim 46.
Regarding claim 47, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 21 are applicable for claim 47.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 34 – 36 and 43 - 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of KO et al (US 2022/0053206, hereafter KO).
As per claim 34, Chang discloses the method of claim 21.
However, Chang does not explicitly teach wherein the format rule specifies that whether the maximum number of merge mode candidates is signaled is determined based on whether a slice type of the current block is I, P, or B.
In the same field of endeavor, KO teaches wherein the format rule specifies that whether the maximum number of merge mode candidates is signaled is determined based on whether a slice type of the current block is I, P, or B (¶ 359).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Chang in view of KO. The advantage is improving video coding.
As per claim 35, Chang discloses the method of claim 34.
However, Chang does not explicitly teach wherein the format rule specifies that the maximum number of merge mode candidates is signaled when the slice type of the current block is P or B.
In the same field of endeavor, KO teaches wherein the format rule specifies that whether the maximum number of merge mode candidates is signaled is determined based on whether a slice type of the current block is I, P, or B (¶ 359).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Chang in view of KO. The advantage is improving video coding.
As per claim 36, Chang discloses the method of claim 34.
However, Chang does not explicitly teach wherein the format rule specifies that the maximum number of merge mode candidates is not signaled when the slice type of the current block is I.
In the same field of endeavor, KO teaches wherein the format rule specifies that the maximum number of merge mode candidates is not signaled when the slice type of the current block is I (¶ 359).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Chang in view of KO. The advantage is improving video coding.
Regarding claim 43, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 34 are applicable for claim 43.
Regarding claim 44, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 35 are applicable for claim 44.
Regarding claim 45, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 36 are applicable for claim 45.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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, David Czekaj can be reached on 571-272-7327. 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.
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights