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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged (US Provisional Application 63/416,404 filed October 14th, 2022).
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 16th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended claims 1, 3, and 4 beyond formalities and 112 Rejections.
Applicant canceled claim 5.
The pending claims when entered will be 1 – 4 [Page 7 lines 1 – 7].
While the amended claims are not entered and the arguments are moot, the Examiner briefly addresses arguments made regarding the amended independent claims.
Applicant provides their summary of the Interview conducted on May 14th, 2026 [Page 7 lines 14 – 18].
Applicant amended claims 1 and 4 to address Examiner’s Claim Objections [Page 7 lines 19 – 22]. The Examiner reconsiders the Objection in view of the amended claims.
Applicant canceled claim 5 to overcome Examiner’s 112d Rejection [Page 8 lines 1 – 4].
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
First the Applicant recites references against the claims [Page 7 lines 8 – 13].
Second, Applicant recites amended independent claim 1 [Page 8 lines 5 – 24].
Third, Applicant broadly contends the cited references do not render obvious features in amended independent claim 1 [Page 8 lines 25 – 32]. The Examiner notes in the interview summary Lim Figures 24 – 25 and Kim Figure 38b and Chang Figures 8A and Paragraphs 105 – 106 and 211 may render obvious features of the amended independent claims when entered. The Examiner further notes Figure 15 of Foreign Item #2 on the April 23rd, 2026 IDS renders obvious features claimed.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
While the Applicant’s points may be understood, the Examiner respectfully disagrees; however, in the sole interest to expedite prosecution cites a new reference against the amended claims.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I (Claims 1 – 5) in the reply filed on September 18th, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 6 – 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions II – VI, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 18th, 2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 23rd, 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Final Rejection (mailed March 26th, 2026). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on November 28th, 2023 and May 15th, 2024 were filed before the mailing date of the First Action on the Merits (mailed October 14th, 2025). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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) 1 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, et al. (US PG PUB 2025/0039371 A1 referred to as “Kim” throughout), and further in view of Lim, et al. (US PG PUB 2022/0321890 A1 referred to as “Lim” throughout) [Cited in Applicant’s May 15th, 2024 IDS], Chang, et al (US PG PUB 2022/0329822 A1 referred to as “Chang” throughout), and Robert, et al. (US PG PUB 2023/0023837 A1 referred to as “Robert” throughout).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches geometric partitioning as a merge mode and signaling the geometric partitioning information with flags indicating using the mode including use as a merge mode candidate. Lim teaches particulars in processing the geometric partition mode with sub-block considerations and how to process the boundary / edge information in the geometric partition. Chang teaches considerations when using GPM regarding the signaling / use of affine (translational) motion models. Robert further teaches using affine models as prediction candidates with QPM / triangular partitions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kim with the partitioning techniques and understandings of processing sub blocks and boundaries as taught by Lim; and the affine model considerations as taught by Chang and Robert. The combination teaches
receiving, from a coded video bitstream, coded information associated with a current block in a current picture, the coded information indicating that the current block is coded in a geometric partition mode (GPM) [Kim Figures 37 – 40 (subfigures included where GPM mode and syntax indicating using the mode) as well as Table 1 and Paragraphs 307 – 311 (see at least the “merge_gpm_partition_idx” signaled for a current block into partitions / subblocks where Paragraphs 314 – 321 is decoding such information signaled in a bitstream)], the current block being partitioned into at least a first partition and a second partition in the GPM by a partition edge [Kim Figures 38 – 40 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 307 – 311 where the partitions in Figure 38(b) at least render obvious the partition edge especially in view of Lim Figure 20 (see geometrically partitioned block into two regions along an edge) as well as Paragraphs 831 – 843 (geometric partitions of blocks for various prediction modes) and 905 – 913 (additional partitioning information where the boundary line renders obvious the “partition edge” claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art where Paragraphs 949 – 954 discuss triangular partitions / edges in geometric partitioning)];
determining that at least the first partition is coded in a subblock motion mode, the first partition comprising a plurality of subblocks [Kim Figures 12 – 13 and 38 – 40 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 113 and 173 – 176 (motion / prediction modes for subblocks), 206 – 211 and 241 (motion for each sub-block computed); Lim Figures 20 – 24 as well as Paragraphs 872 – 876, 905 – 913, and 923 (partitioned regions comprises multiple blocks / subblocks used for motion model / predictor determination)];
determining a plurality of motion vectors for the plurality of subblocks in the first partition of the current block [Kim Figures 9, 12 – 13 and 38 – 40 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 113, 148 – 150 (AMVP / merge list of motion vectors determined for a current block / subblock) and 173 – 176 (motion / prediction modes for subblocks – combinable with Paragraphs 148 – 150), 206 – 211 and 241 (motion for each sub-block computed where in Paragraph 211 the cost / motion model of the subblocks is considered being based on a plurality of motion vectors); Lim Figures 20 – 24 as well as Paragraphs 511 – 525 (MVs determination for subblocks / regions for the region being predicted), 872 – 876, 905 – 913, and 923 (partitioned regions comprises multiple blocks / subblocks used for motion model / predictor determination)];
the plurality of motion vectors for the plurality of sub blocks in the first partition being determined based on control point motion vectors (CMPVs) of a first affine prediction mode that are different from CMPVs of a second affine prediction mode applied to the second partition when a geometric partition boundary extends from a bottom block boundary to a right block boundary of the current block [
Kim Figure 38 (see at least Figure 38b for the claimed partitioning direction) as well as Paragraphs 241 – 243, 300 and 306 – 310 (affine mode for a block / subblock in geometric partitions – to combine with Chang); Chang Figures 8 – 10 (subfigures included such as 8A for the partition direction claimed and see geometric partitions with exemplary control points) as well as Paragraphs 105 – 106 (signaling GPM), 115 – 119 (different affine model techniques where the selection of the affine model is obvious as from a finite number of elements in KSR Rationale (E) as each partition uses its own control points in combination with Paragraphs 104 – 107), 192 – 203 (affine and GPM with control point motion vectors (CPMVs) with selection considerations / different ways to select the CPMVs further rendered obvious in Paragraph 201 limiting CPMV to the points in the sub-block), and 204 – 213 (considerations when the affine models in the geometric partitions are different / use different MVs for the model / different indices for the CPMVs or signaling affine and translational models used in the two geometrically partitioned blocks – see in particular Paragraph 211 enforcing different CPMVs for different partitions rendering obvious even a selection of CPMVs from a finite number of elements in KSR Rationale (E)); Robert Figures 3 and 12 (triangular partition for blocks including rectangular partitions) as well as Paragraphs 75 – 77 (including code segments on signaling candidates in GPM) and 85 – 93 (storing seeds / CPMVs for sub blocks to use for affine CPMVs in which the sub blocks are partitioned with different shapes and thus different seeds / CPMVs are inherited / used between various / adjacent sub-blocks in the triangular / geometric partition)]; and
reconstructing the plurality of subblocks in the first partition of the current block according to the plurality of motion vectors respectively [Kim Figures 9, 12 – 13, 29 – 32 (affine models with motion vectors to reconstruct blocks) and 38 – 40 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 113 – 115 (reconstruction with affine motion models / modes), 148 – 150 (AMVP / merge list of motion vectors determined for a current block / subblock used in a decoder to reconstruct the block), 173 – 176 (motion / prediction modes for subblocks – combinable with Paragraphs 148 – 150), 206 – 211 and 240 - 243 (motion for each sub-block computed where in Paragraph 211 the cost / motion model of the subblocks is considered being based on a plurality of motion vectors and affine models), and 306 – 311 (reconstruction of blocks using GPM in which motion / residual information (motion vectors) is used for the reconstruction)].
The motivation to combine Lim with Kim is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of image encoding / decoding using geometric partitioning [Lim Paragraph 1 and 8] in order to improve compression algorithms effectiveness / efficiency [Lim Paragraphs 8 and 29 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
The motivation to combine Chang with Kim and Lim is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of video encoding / decoding [Chang Paragraph 2] in order to improve coding for inter prediction coding tools including using geometrical partitions [Chang Paragraphs 5 and 78 – 79 where the Examiner observes KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
The motivation to combine Robert with Chang, Kim, and Lim is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of inter prediction in video coding with triangular candidates [Robert Paragraphs 1 – 2 and 4] in order to improve coding efficiency and performance using triangular partitions [Robert Paragraphs 2 and 42 – 47 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Lim, Kim, Chang, and Robert which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches geometric partitioning as a merge mode and signaling the geometric partitioning information with flags indicating using the mode including use as a merge mode candidate. Lim teaches particulars in processing the geometric partition mode with sub-block considerations and how to process the boundary / edge information in the geometric partition. Chang teaches considerations when using GPM regarding the signaling / use of affine (translational) motion models. Robert further teaches using affine models as prediction candidates with QPM / triangular partitions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kim with the partitioning techniques and understandings of processing sub blocks and boundaries as taught by Lim; and the affine model considerations as taught by Chang and Robert. The combination teaches
wherein the subblock motion mode comprises [See claim 1 “subblock motion mode” for citations where Lim Figures 20 – 25 list various combinations of subblock motion mode information (e.g. merge candidates, intra mode, planar mode)] at least one of an affine prediction mode [Kim Paragraphs 300 and 306 – 310 (affine mode for a block / subblock in geometric partitions)], a subblock based temporal motion vector prediction (SbTMVP) [Kim Figures 7 and 38 – 40 (TMVP used to generate merge candidates for subblocks) as well as Paragraphs 141 – 142 (SbTMVP is a merge candidate prediction mode / tool), 244, 253, and 306 – 311 (merge candidates with GPM)], and a subblock based decoder side motion vector refinement (DMVR) [Kim Figures 20 – 24 and 38 – 40 as well as Paragraphs 206 – 210 (DMVR techniques to generate merge predictor candidates), 214 – 218, and 306 – 311 (merge candidates with GPM)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Lim, Kim, Chang, and Robert.
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches geometric partitioning as a merge mode and signaling the geometric partitioning information with flags indicating using the mode including use as a merge mode candidate. Lim teaches particulars in processing the geometric partition mode with sub-block considerations and how to process the boundary / edge information in the geometric partition. Chang teaches considerations when using GPM regarding the signaling / use of affine (translational) motion models. Robert further teaches using affine models as prediction candidates with QPM / triangular partitions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kim with the partitioning techniques and understandings of processing sub blocks and boundaries as taught by Lim; and the affine model considerations as taught by Chang and Robert. The combination teaches
wherein the determining that at least the first partition is coded in the subblock motion mode [See claim 1 for citations] further comprises:
decoding, when the current block is coded in the GPM, a flag from the coded video bitstream, the flag indicating that both of the first partition and the second partition are in the subblock motion mode [Kim Figures 38 – 40 (subfigures included) and Table 2 as well as Paragraphs 241 – 245 (signaling subblocks being predicted with various techniques – see Figures 38 – 31 as well and combinable with Lim for using merge candidates / TMVP / affine motion models) 360 – 311 (coding a block in GPM); Lim Figures 20 – 24 as well as Paragraphs 845 – 863 (flags used to indicate use of merge mode candidates for partitions which are in the bitstream and decoded); Chang Paragraphs 192 – 202 (signaling / performing affine in triangular / GPM modes); Robert Paragraphs 75 – 77 (Tables included signaling candidates in GPM / triangular partitioning mode) and 83 – 93 (affine considerations in GPM / triangular mode)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Lim, Kim, Chang, and Robert.
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches geometric partitioning as a merge mode and signaling the geometric partitioning information with flags indicating using the mode including use as a merge mode candidate. Lim teaches particulars in processing the geometric partition mode with sub-block considerations and how to process the boundary / edge information in the geometric partition. Chang teaches considerations when using GPM regarding the signaling / use of affine (translational) motion models. Robert further teaches using affine models as prediction candidates with QPM / triangular partitions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kim with the partitioning techniques and understandings of processing sub blocks and boundaries as taught by Lim; and the affine model considerations as taught by Chang and Robert. The combination teaches
wherein the determining that at least the first partition is coded in the subblock motion mode [See claim 1 for citations] further comprises:
determining that the first partition is coded in a merge mode [See claim 1 “subblock motion mode” for citations and additionally Lim Figures 20 – 25 list various combinations of subblock motion mode information (e.g. merge candidates, intra mode, planar mode)]; and
when the first partition is coded in the merge mode, decoding a flag from the coded video bitstream, the flag indicating whether the first partition is in a regular merge mode or a subblock based merge mode [Kim Figures 38 – 40 (subfigures included) and Table 2 as well as Paragraphs 141 – 142 (SbTMVP is a merge candidate prediction mode / tool for a subblock merge mode), 241 – 245 (signaling subblocks being predicted with various techniques – see Figures 38 – 31 as well and combinable with Lim for using merge candidates / TMVP / affine motion models) 360 – 311 (coding a block in GPM); Lim Figures 20 – 25 as well as Paragraphs 804 – 809 (merge mode which may be considered regular or subblock techniques (e.g. use of AMVP or merge modes)), 845 – 863 (flags used to indicate use of merge mode candidates for partitions which are in the bitstream and decoded)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Lim, Kim, Chang, and Robert.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Deng, et al. (US PG PUB 2025/0159245 A1 referred to as “Deng” throughout) in which Figures 24 – 29 and Paragraphs 374 – 401 render obvious partitioned blocks by GPM using AMVP and merge mode coding tools.
References which may raise ODP issues based on amendments made to the claims: Chen, et al. (US Patent #11,876,978 B2 referred to as “Chen” throughout); Li, et al. (US PG PUB 2022/0353500 A1 referred to as “Li” throughout); Chen, et al. (US PG PUB 2021/0160520 A1 referred to as “Chen 20” throughout).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler W Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)270-5684. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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 at (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.
/TYLER W. SULLIVAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights