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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/17/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Final Rejection on 12/22/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/20/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Advisory Action on 03/09/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Remarks
Claims 1-23 were pending. Claims 13-20 were previously withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1, 2 and 21-23 have been amended. Claims 1-12 and 21-23 are pending for examination with claims 13-20 being withdrawn. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection to the claim 23 is moot in view of Applicant’s amendment filed on 02/23/2026.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saxena et al. (US 20150016516 A1, hereinafter “Saxena”) in view of CHIANG et al. (US 20220103854 A1, hereinafter “Chiang”)
Regarding claim 1. (Currently Amended) Saxena discloses a method for video processing (Figures 1A-1B), comprising:
obtaining, during a conversion between a target video block of a video and a bitstream of the video (0045, 0031 and 0081-0087; Figures 1A-B and 5-7; “[0045] In the Range Extensions effort for the High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) being held in the ongoing JCTVC standardization, various techniques for high bit-depths (more than 8) for video sequences, lossless, and visually lossless coding, screen content coding, coding of video in different color planes, other than YUV, such as RGB etc. are being investigated.”, “[0031] The quantized transform coefficients can be restored to residual values by passing through an inverse quantizer 130 and an inverse transform unit 132. The restored residual values can be post-processed by passing through a de-blocking unit 135 and a sample adaptive offset unit 140 and output as the reference frame 145. The quantized transform coefficients can be output as a bitstream 127 by passing through an entropy encoder 125.”);
determining a final predication of a partition for the target video block depends on at least one piece of motion information associated with the partition (0038; Figures 1B and 5-7; “[0038] Transform/Inverse Transform (units 120, 132, and 170): A transform unit can be used to compress an image in inter-frames or intra-frames. One commonly used transform is the Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT). [0039] Quantization/Inverse Quantization (units 122, 130, and 165): A quantization stage can reduce the amount of information by dividing each transform coefficient by a particular number to reduce the quantity of possible values that each transform coefficient value could have. Because this makes the values fall into a narrower range, this allows entropy coding to express the values more compactly. [0040] De-blocking and Sample adaptive offset units (units 135, 140, and 182): De-blocking can remove encoding artifacts due to block-by-block coding of an image. A de-blocking filter acts on boundaries of image blocks and removes blocking artifacts. A sample adaptive offset unit can minimize ringing artifacts.”); and
performing the conversion based on the final predication of a partition (0030-0031, 0033 and 0081-0087; Figures 1A-B and 5-7; “[0031] The quantized transform coefficients can be restored to residual values by passing through an inverse quantizer 130 and an inverse transform unit 132. The restored residual values can be post-processed by passing through a de-blocking unit 135 and a sample adaptive offset unit 140 and output as the reference frame 145. ...”).
Saxena failed to disclose a plurality of partitions of the target video block by dividing the target video block, wherein the target video block is coded by hybrid prediction tool, the hybrid prediction tool comprises one of: combined inter and intra prediction (CIIP), multi-hypothesis prediction (MHP), wherein a plurality of pieces of motion information associated with the plurality of partitions are included in the bitstream or derived during the conversion.
Chiang, however, in the same field of endeavor, shows obtaining a plurality of partitions of the target video block by dividing the target video block, wherein the target video block is coded by hybrid prediction tool (0003-0004), the hybrid prediction tool comprises one of: combined inter and intra prediction (CIIP), multi-hypothesis prediction (MHP), wherein a plurality of pieces of motion information associated with the plurality of partitions are included in the bitstream or derived during the conversion (0068 and 0083; Figures 1 and 11-13; “[0068] CIIP mode is intended to improve the Inter prediction by combining one additional hypothesis of Intra prediction with the existing Merge prediction and can be treated as a normal Intra mode, a normal Inter mode or a new combined mode. In this invention, the Intra prediction can be generated from the HEVC-like Intra mode or HEVC-like Intra mode plus one or more newly developed coding tools. The new tools can be 67 Intra prediction modes, ISP mode, or any combination of the above. When the Intra prediction for CIIP mode is from ISP, the flow is described as Steps 1 to 4 as follows.”).
It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method and apparatus of combined inter and intra prediction (CIIP) for video coding as shown by Chiang in the method of processing video data of Saxena in order to obtain an improve, efficient and cost effective video processing as well a system which can improve the flexibility of coding and facilitate equalization between the coding performance and the coding overhead.
Regarding claim 21. (Currently Amended) Apparatus claim 21 is drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, apparatus claim 21 corresponds to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 22. (Currently Amended) Non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 22 is drawn to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of using the corresponding to the method of using the same as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 22 corresponds to the method claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 23. (Currently Amended) Claim 23 recites similar features as the limitation of claim 1. Claim 23 further recites a method for storing the bitstream in a non-transitory medium storing bitstream medium. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected for the same reasoning of obviousness as used to reject claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 and 21-23 have been considered but are moot based on the new ground of rejection for claims 1 and 21-23.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASMAMAW TARKO whose telephone number is (571)272-7493. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/ASMAMAW G TARKO/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights