Detailed Office Action
1. This communication is being filed in response to the initial submission having a mailing date of 07/06/2026, in which a three (3) month Shortened Statutory Period for Response has been set.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgements
3. Upon new entry, claims (1 -20) remain pending for examination, of which claims (1, 18. 19, 20) are the four (4) independent claims on record, being amended.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments received on (07/06/2026) have been fully considered but they're not persuasive, for the at least following reasons;
4.1. Examiner considers that Applicant merely reveals the fundamentals principles of a well-known codec techniques, wherein plurality of candidates in a GPM candidate list is/are generated, ordered and signaled, in accordance with the VVC standard; as similarly disclosed in the PA [Liao/Chang] and as detailed implemented by Ma, that for the most part, were commonly known and used, way before the invention was made/filed.
4.2. Further, the undersigned notes that when Applicant describes the features and/or components of the claim-invention, they’re usually followed by a set of passive verbs/terms such as “during/responding/reordering/dividing… and the like it”, indicating that a function is performed without requiring of any additional functional (i.e. [reorder, or dividing, or updating, etc] a list. is not a technique, but technically defined as “simply parsing data” without any performative data transformation) structure or method as a limitation on the claim itself.
It is clear that such claim construction does not further limit the claims, and does not require a separate reason for rejection; (see also MPEP 2111.04 for more information). The clause may be given some weight to the extent it provides "meaning and purpose” to the claimed invention, but not when “it simply expresses the intended result” of the invention.
While a cumulative rejection of such language is provided below for purposes of compact prosecution, the undersigned suggests amend the claim language, to recite clear limitations corresponding to the functional description of the claimed subject matter.
4.2. As a matter of claim interpretation, the Office gives the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification; See “In re Morris,” 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); and see "In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr.”, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004); …and while the Office interprets the presented claims broadly but reasonably in light of the specification, we nonetheless must not import limitations from the specification into the claims. See “Phillips v. A WH Corp.”, 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
4.3. In order to prove patentability, the claim language has to present a clear defined and novel functionality, including an algorithm execution that would differentiate from the PA, the standard papers and the knowledge of the Art.
The newly presented claim amendments, fails above requirement, and therefore, the undersigned still considers that no allowable subject matter has been yet identified, so that further amendments are necessitated moving forward, to differentiate the instant invention from the recorded Prior Art, (section 7).
5. Regarding Applicant arguments/remarks;
5.1. Applicant argues that the combination of PA on record fails to disclose the new amended features [pages 11-13]. In this regard Applicant asserts that the recorded combination of Liao/Chang; in details disclose (e.g. refining one or more GPM partitions, and candidate list’s construction, in accordance with VVC codec. [page 13]; as in detailed described in [Liao; page 1-2] and [Chang; Cols. 14: 16], wherein ordering, pruning (i.e. checking order, update/removal duplications, disclosed) of candidates is similarly applied.)
5.2. For the specific mapping of the new amendments, please refer to rationale/motivation in section (6) below.
5.3. Finally, the Office considers Applicant's arguments not persuasive, as applied rejection on record still read on the current claims, establishing the "Prima Facie" case of equivalent disclosure, on the basis of a one person of ordinary skills in the art would have recognized the similar elements shown, or the same structural similarities shown, wherein such structure performs the same identical functions in substantially the same way, able to produce the same identical results.
_ See [MPEP - 2183, “Making a Prima Facie Case of Equivalence”].
_ See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990)]; …similar structure disclosure.
_ See Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 54 USPQ2d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000)] …identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way.
35 USC 103 rejection
6. 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 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.
6.1. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
6.2. Claims (1 -20) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the recorded combination of Liao; et al. (“Combination of GPM and template matching; hereafter “Liao”) in view of Chang; et al (US 12,160,574 B2; hereafter “Chang”), and further in view of Ma; et al. (US 12,489,917 B2; hereafter “Ma”).
Claim 1. (Currently Amended). Liao/Chang discloses the invention substantially as claimed - A method of video processing, comprising: determining, during a conversion between a target block of a video and a bitstream of the video, a coding mode applied to the target block; in response to the coding mode being a geometric partitioning mode (GPM), reordering a plurality of merge motion candidates in a GPM candidate list associated with the target block; wherein the plurality of motion candidates in the GPM candidate list is divided into a first number of subgroups and the first number of motion candidates in a subgroup is predefined; and performing the conversion using the plurality of reordered merge motion candidates. In this regard, Liao teaches - (e.g. see codec implementation disclosed, in accordance with the VVC standard; employing GPM techniques, to construct a merge candidate list, and a template created from left and above neighboring samples, in order to find best and cost-efficient “template match”; [page 1-2]); and perform the conversion using the plurality of merge candidates in a GPM list, associated with the processed CU, by definition indexed and ordered; [Ch. 1-2].
Chang teaches - (e.g. a codec ecosystem of the same, as shown in at least Fig. 1, including encoder (Fig. 4) and decoder (Fig. 5) for conversion of the incoming video stream, employing GPM techniques (Fig. 2) and template matching; [17: 26], and a merge candidate list construction, as shown in Table (Fig. 3; [2: 32]), of MV candidates for GPM mode [Cols. 13 -15], wherein reordering/pruning of candidates is similarly applied (e.g. checking ordering updated/removal [Chang; Cols. 14: 62; 16: 04-35]); where candidates are divided in sub-groups based on [i.e. pattern, template-match, angle, offsets, weight] characteristics (i.e. X parity of N), Fig. 3; and wherein the sample values along GP are adjusted using blending/grouping; [Chang; Col. 13]);
As Applicant pointed out, It is note that the list maintenance technique as claimed, is briefly disclosed in the combined Liao/Chang.
For the purpose of additional clarification, and in the same field of endeavor, Ma discloses a similar codec ecosystem (encoder/decoder), and a similar inter prediction technique, able to construct a GPM candidate list, for the target CU, as illustrated in at least Figs. (1 -2).
Ma specifically discloses - reordering the plurality of motion candidates comprises: reordering the plurality of motion candidates after at least part of a construction process of the GPM candidate list, (e.g. construct a merge candidate list of the current block (302), in at least Figs. (3, 17), reordering the GPM candidate lists (303), by updating and removing duplications in the list; [Ma; 17: 10; 19: 65; Cols. 29 -30]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the implementation of Liao, with the codec architecture of Chang, in order to provide (e.g. improve the coding efficiency and/or reduce distortion for pictures of video data coded using geometric partitioning mode; [Chang; 13: 40]; and further combined with the inter-prediction technique of Ma, in order to provide (e.g. optimal length and reduction of the GPM motion candidate list, and consequently, the efficiency of motion prediction, video encoding and decoding is/are improved; [Ma; 38: 60].)
Claim 2. (Original) Liao/Chang/Ma discloses - The method of claim 1, wherein reordering the plurality of motion candidates comprises: reordering the plurality of motion candidates (e.g. see analogous in [Chang; 13: 35; 14: 05]); in a first uni-prediction GPM candidate list; (e.g. see analogous in [Chang; 14: 18]; and (e.g. reordering the GPM candidate lists (303), by updating and removing duplications in the list; [Ma; 17: 10; 19: 65; Cols. 29 -30]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 3. (Original) Liao/Chang/Ma discloses - The method of claim 2, wherein at least two motion candidates in the first uni- prediction GPM candidate list are reordered, (e.g. see analogous in [Liao; page 1-2] and [Chang; Col. 14]); or wherein at least one type of template is used for reordering the plurality of motion candidates in a first uni-prediction GPM candidate list, (e.g. see analogous in [Liao; page 1-2] and [Chang; Col. 14]); or wherein a first template associated with the target block comprises a set of neighboring samples left to the target block, (e.g. see analogous in [Liao; page 1-2] and [Chang; Col. 14]); or wherein a second template associated with the target block comprises a set of neighboring samples above to the target block, (e.g. see analogous in [Liao; page 1-2] and [Chang; Col. 14]); or wherein a third template associated with the target block comprises a set of neighboring samples left to the target block and a set of neighboring samples above to the target block, (e.g. see analogous in [Liao; page 1-2] and [Chang; Col. 14]); or wherein reordering the plurality of motion candidates comprises: reordering the plurality of motion candidates after a parsing process associated with the target block and before a motion vector reconstructions process associated with the target block; (e.g. see similar reordering technique in at least [Chang; Cols. 14: 62; 16: 04-35]); and (e.g. reordering the GPM candidate lists (303), by updating and removing duplications in the list; [Ma; 17: 10; 19: 65; Cols. 29 -30]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 4. (Original) Liao/Chang/Ma discloses - The method of claim 1, wherein the reordering the plurality of motion candidates comprises: reordering the plurality of motion candidates in a second uni-prediction GPM candidate list which is refined using an above template of the target block; (e.g. see similar reordering technique in [Chang; Cols. 14: 62; 16: 04-35]); and (e.g. reordering the GPM candidate lists (303), by updating and removing duplications in the list; [Ma; 17: 10; 19: 65; Cols. 29 -30]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 5. (Original) Liao/Chang/Ma discloses - The method of claim 4, wherein at least two motion candidates in the second uni- prediction GPM candidate list are recorded, or wherein at least one type of template is used for reordering the plurality of motion candidates in a second uni-prediction GPM candidate list which is refined using an above template of the target block, in a first uni-prediction GPM candidate list; (e.g. see analogous in [Chang; Col. 13 -14]); or wherein a first template associated with the target block comprises a set of neighboring samples above to the target block, or wherein a second template associated with the target block comprises the set of neighboring samples above to the target block and a set of neighboring samples left to the target block; (e.g. see analogous in [Chang; Col. 13-14]); in a first uni-prediction GPM candidate list; (e.g. see analogous in [Chang; Col. 14]; and (e.g. reordering the GPM candidate lists (303), by updating and removing duplications in the list; [Ma; 17: 10; 19: 65; Cols. 29 -30]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 6. (Original) Liao/Chang/Ma discloses - The method of claim 1, wherein the reordering the plurality of motion candidates comprises: reordering the plurality of motion candidates in a third uni-prediction GPM candidate list which is refined using a left template of the target block; (e.g. see merge candidate list construction, from left and above neighboring samples, in order to find best and cost efficient match; [page 1-2]; see also similar in [Chang; 10: 05]; and (e.g. reordering the GPM candidate lists (303), by updating and removing duplications in the list; [Ma; 17: 10; 19: 65; Cols. 29 -30]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 7. (Original) Liao/Chang/Ma discloses - The method of claim 6, wherein at least two motion candidates in the third un- prediction GPM candidate list are reordered, or wherein at least one type of template is used for reordering the plurality of motion candidates in a third uni-prediction GPM candidate list which is refined using a left template of the target block, (e.g. see analogous in [Chang; Col. 13-14]); or wherein a first template associated with the target block comprises a set of neighboring samples left to the target block, or wherein a second template associated with the target block comprises a set of neighboring samples above to the target block and the set of neighboring samples left to the target block; (e.g. see analogous in [Chang; Col. 13- 14]; and (e.g. reordering the GPM candidate lists (303), by updating and removing duplications in the list; [Ma; 17: 10; 19: 65; Cols. 29 -30]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 8. (Original) Liao/Chang/Ma discloses - The method of claim 1, wherein the reordering the plurality of motion candidates comprises: reordering the plurality of motion candidates in a fourth uni-prediction GPM candidate list which is refined using a left and above template of the target block; (e.g. see [Liao; page 1-2] and n-th uni-prediction candidates derived in the process, [Chang; Col. 14]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 9. (Original) Liao/Chang/Ma discloses - The method of claim 8, wherein at least two motion candidates in the fourth uni- prediction GPM candidate list are reordered, (e.g. see analogous in [Chang; Col. 13- 14] including n-th uni-prediction candidates derived in the process; the same motivation applies herein.) or wherein at least one type of template is used for reordering the plurality of motion candidates in a fourth uni-prediction GPM candidate list which is refined using a left and above template of the target block, (e.g. see analogous in [Chang; Col. 13 -14]); or wherein a first template associated with the target block comprises a set of neighboring samples left to the target block, (e.g. see analogous in [Chang; Col. 13 -14]); or wherein a second template associated with the target block comprises a set of neighboring samples above to the target block, (e.g. see [Chang; Col. 13 -14]); or wherein a third template associated with the target block comprises a set of neighboring samples left to the target block and a set of neighboring samples above to the target block; (e.g. see analogous in [Chang; Col. 13 -14]; and (e.g. reordering the GPM candidate lists (303), by updating and removing duplications in the list; [Ma; 17: 10; 19: 65; Cols. 29 -30]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 10. (Original) Liao/Chang/Ma discloses - The method of claim 1, further comprising at least one of: determining whether to reorder the plurality of motion candidates based on coding information associated with the target block; (e.g. see similar reordering technique in at least [Chang; Cols. 14: 62; 16: 04-35]); or determining how to reorder the plurality of motion candidates based on the coding information associated with the target block; (e.g. see similar reordering technique in at least [Chang; Cols. 14: 62; 16: 04-35]); and (e.g. reordering the GPM candidate lists (303), by updating and removing duplications in the list; [Ma; 17: 10; 19: 65; Cols. 29 -30]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 11. (Original) Liao/Chang/Ma discloses - The method of claim 10, wherein determining whether to reorder the plurality of motion candidates comprises: determining whether to reorder the plurality of motion candidates based on whether a template matching based motion refinement is applied to a GPM partition or two GPM partitions of the target block; (e.g. see similar reordering technique in at least [Chang; Cols. 14: 62; 16: 04-35]); and (e.g. reordering the GPM candidate lists (303), by updating and removing duplications in the list; [Ma; 17: 10; 19: 65; Cols. 29 -30]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 12. Liao/Chang/Ma discloses - The method of claim 10, wherein determining how to reorder the plurality of motion candidates comprises: determining how to reorder the plurality of motion candidates based on GPM partition information associated with the target block; (e.g. see similar reordering technique in at least [Chang; Cols. 14: 62; 16: 04-35]); and (e.g. reorder GPM candidate lists (303), by updating and removing duplications in the list; [Ma; 17: 10; 19: 65; Cols. 29 -30]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 13. (Original) Liao/Chang/Ma discloses - The method of claim 12, wherein if a current GPM partition is split by one of a first partition angle, a first partition mode, or a first partition distance, an above template is used for reordering the plurality of motion candidates, (e.g. see plurality of partition angles in Fig. 2, where partition parameters are derived (location, distance, angle, offset, etc); [Chang; 12: 60]); or wherein if a current GPM partition is split by one of: a second partition angle, a second partition mode, or a second partition distance, a left template is used for reordering the plurality of motion candidates, (e.g. plurality of partition angles in Fig. 2, where partition parameters are derived (i.e. location, distance, angle, offset, etc); [Chang; 12: 60]); or wherein if a current GPM partition is split by one of a third partition angle, a third partition mode, or a third partition distance, a left and above template is used for reordering the plurality of motion candidates, (e.g. see [Chang; Col. 12 and 14]); or wherein a type of template is specified based on corresponding information between the type of template and associated GPM partition information; (e.g. see plurality of partition angles in Fig. 2, where partition parameters are derived (i.e. location, distance, angle, offset, etc); [Chang; 12: 60]; and (e.g. reordering the GPM candidate lists (303), by updating and removing duplications in the list; [Ma; 17: 10; 19: 65; Cols. 29 -30]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 14. (Original) Liao/Chang/Ma discloses - The method of claim 1, wherein reordering the plurality of motion candidates comprises: adaptively rearranging the plurality of motion candidates in a GPM candidate list according to one or more criterions; (e.g. see “template match” similarly used as criteria (i.e. MV min. differences, etc) in [Liao; page 1-2]; and (e.g. reordering the GPM candidate lists (303), by updating and removing duplications in the list; [Ma; 17: 10; 19: 65; Cols. 29 -30]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 15. (Currently Amended) Liao/Chang/Ma discloses - The method of claim 14, wherein the GPM candidate list comprises one of: a first uni-prediction GPM candidate list, a second uni-prediction GPM candidate list which is refined using an above template of the target block, a third uni-prediction GPM candidate list which is refined using a left template of the target block, or a fourth uni-prediction GPM candidate list which is refined using a left and above template of the target block, (e.g. see analogous in [Liao; page 1-2]; and see also Fig. 3; where uni-prediction samples in the GPM list are accordantly grouped and reordered; [Chang; Col. 13 -14]); or wherein the plurality of motion candidates in the GPM candidate list is divided into a plurality of subgroups and a number of motion candidates in a subgroup is predefined, (e.g. where candidates are divided in sub-groups based on [i.e. pattern, template-match, angle, offsets, weight] characteristics (i.e. X parity of N), Fig. 3; where sample values along GP are adjusted using blending/grouping; [Chang; Col. 13]; or wherein reordering the plurality of motion candidates comprises: reordering the plurality of motion candidates after at least part of a construction process of the GPM candidate list, or wherein adaptively rearranging the plurality of motion candidates in the GPM candidate list comprises: (e.g. see [Liao; page 1-2] and [Chang; Col. 14]); also adaptively architecture implemented in Table 2; using the “IF” statement; [Ma; 22: 55]) adaptively rearranging the plurality of motion candidates in the GPM candidate list before retrieving the target motion candidates, or wherein the one or more criterions are based on a template matching cost; (e.g. see “template match” similarly used as criteria (i.e. see MV minimum difference as cost performance) in [Liao; page 1-2]; see also cost optimization of the same in at least [Ma; 6: 45]).
Claim 16. (Original) Liao/Chang/Ma discloses - The method of claim 1, wherein if a set of motion candidates is in a first uni- prediction GPM candidate list, the set of motion candidates is not reordered, (e.g. see analogous in [Chang; Col. 13 -14]); or wherein a first set of motion candidates in a first uni-prediction GPM candidate list is not reordered, and wherein a second set of motion candidates in at least one of the followings is reordered: (e.g. see analogous in [Chang; Col. 13 -14]); a second uni-prediction GPM candidate list which is refined using an above template of the target block, (e.g. see analogous in [Chang; Col. 13 -14]); a third uni-prediction GPM candidate list which is refined using a left template of the target block, (e.g. see analogous in [Chang; Col. 13 -14]); or a fourth uni-prediction GPM candidate list which is refined using a left and above template of the target block, (e.g. see analogous in [Chang; Col. 13 -14]); or wherein the target block comprises two geometric partitions, and wherein if a template matching (TM) is not applied to one geometric partition, (e.g. see analogous in [Chang; Col. 13 -14]); a motion of the geometric partition is derived according to a merge index from a first uni-prediction GPM candidate list or a first reordered uni-prediction GPM candidate list, (e.g. see merge index of the same in [Chang; Col 13])
or wherein the target block comprises two geometric partitions, and wherein if a TM is applied to one geometric partition, a motion of the geometric partition is derived according to a merge index from one of the followings based on a partition angle and a partition index: (e.g. see analogous in [Chang; Col. 13 -14]); a second uni-prediction GPM candidate list which is refined using an above template of the target block, a reordered second uni-prediction GPM candidate list, a third uni-prediction GPM candidate list which is refined using a left template of the target block, (e.g. see analogous in [Chang; Col. 13 -14]); a reordered third uni-prediction GPM candidate list, a fourth uni-prediction GPM candidate list which is refined using a left and above template of the target block, or a reordered fourth uni-prediction GPM candidate list, (e.g. see in [Chang; Col. 13 -14]); or wherein the target block comprises two geometric partitions, and wherein if a TM is applied to one geometric partition, a motion of the geometric partition is derived according to a merge index from one of the followings: (e.g. see analogous in [Chang; Col. 13 -14]); a second uni-prediction GPM candidate list which is refined using an above template of the target block, (e.g. see analogous in [Chang; Col. 13 -14]); a reordered second uni-prediction GPM candidate list, a third uni-prediction GPM candidate list which is refined using a left template of the target block, (e.g. see analogous in [Chang; Col. 13 -14]); a reordered third uni-prediction GPM candidate list, a fourth uni-prediction GPM candidate list which is refined using a left and above template of the target block, or a reordered fourth uni-prediction GPM candidate list, (e.g. see [Chang; Col. 13 -14]); or wherein the method further comprises at least one of: determining whether to reorder the plurality of motion candidates based on category information of the plurality of motion candidates; (e.g. see [Chang; 12: 30; Col. 13-14]);
or determining how to reorder the plurality of motion candidates based on the category information of the plurality of motion candidates, (e.g. see [Chang; 12: 30; Col. 13-14]); or wherein the target block comprises at least one of: a GPM coded block with merge mode, or a GPM coded block with advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) mode, or wherein the plurality of motion candidates comprise at least one of: a plurality of GPM merge candidates, or a plurality of GPM AMVP candidates, (e.g. see similar GPM with AMVP in [Chang; 10: 17]); or wherein an indication of whether to and/or how to reorder the plurality of motion candidates is indicated (e.g. see [Chang; 3: 10; 12: 30; 13: 35; 14: 10].) at one of the followings: sequence level, group of pictures level, picture level, slice level, or tile group level, (e.g. see similar levels used [Chang; 7: 55]); or wherein an indication of whether to and/or how to reorder the plurality of motion candidates (e.g. see also [Chang; 3: 10; 12: 30; 13: 35; 14: 10]) is indicated in one of the following: a sequence header, a picture header, a sequence parameter set (SPS), (e.g. signalling of the same in [Chang; 11: 30]); a video parameter set (VPS), a dependency parameter set (DPS), a decoding capability information (DCI), a picture parameter set (PPS), an adaptation parameter sets (APS), a slice header, or a tile group header, (e.g. signalling of the same in [Chang; 11: 30; 13: 30]); or wherein an indication of whether to and/or how to reorder the plurality of motion candidates is included in one of the following: a prediction block (PB), a transform block (TB), a coding block (CB), a prediction unit (PU), a transform unit (TU), a coding unit (CU), a virtual pipeline data unit (VPDU), a coding tree unit (CTU), a CTU row, a slice, a tile, a sub-picture, or a region containing more than one sample or pixel, (e.g. see similar in [Chang; 7: 35; 7: 55]);
or wherein the method further comprises: determining, based on coded information of the target block, whether and/or how to reorder the plurality of motion candidates, (e.g. see reordering/pruning capabilities, when GPM mode is used; [Chang; Cols. 14: 62; 16: 04-35]); and reordering the GPM candidate lists (303), by updating and removing duplications in the list; [Ma; 17: 10; 19: 65; Cols. 29 -30]), the coded information including at least one of: the coding mode, a block size, a colour format, a single and/or dual tree partitioning, a colour component, GPM partition information, a slice type, or a picture type; (e.g. see tile/slice type, color format, block size, etc in [Chang; 6: 20; 8: 50; 9: 10]; same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 17. (Original) Liao/Chang/Ma discloses - The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the target block into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the target block from the bitstream. (The same rationale and motivation ally as given to Claim 1 above. See also encoder (Fig. 4) and decoder (Fig. 5) for conversion of the incoming video stream.)
Claim 18. (Currently Amended) Liao/Chang/Ma discloses - An apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising: determining, during a conversion between a target block of a video and a bitstream of the video, a coding mode applied to the target block; in response to the coding mode being a geometric partitioning mode (GPM), reordering a plurality of merge motion candidates in a GPM candidate list associated with the target block wherein reordering the plurality of motion candidates comprises: reordering the plurality of motion candidates after at least part of a construction process of the GPM candidate list, wherein the plurality of motion candidates in the GPM candidate list is divided into a first number of subgroups and the first number of motion candidates in a subgroup is predefined; and performing the conversion using the plurality of reordered merge motion candidates. (Current lists all the same elements as recite in Claim 1 above, but in “Apparatus form” instead, and is therefore on the same premise.)
Claim 19. (Currently Amended) Liao/Chang/Ma discloses - A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform acts comprising: determining, during a conversion between a target block of a video and a bitstream of the video, a coding mode applied to the target block; in response to the coding mode being a geometric partitioning mode (GPM), reordering a plurality of merge motion candidates in a GPM candidate list associated with the target block, wherein reordering the plurality of motion candidates comprises: reordering the plurality of motion candidates after at least part of a construction process of the GPM candidate list, wherein the plurality of motion candidates in the GPM candidate list is divided into a first number of subgroups and the first number of motion candidates in a subgroup is predefined; and performing the conversion using the plurality of reordered merge motion candidates. (Current lists all the same elements as recite in Claim 1 above, but in “CRM form” instead, and is therefore on the same premise.)
Claim 20. (Currently Amended) Liao/Chang/Ma discloses - A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus, wherein the method comprises: determining a coding mode applied to a target block of the video; in response to the coding mode being a geometric partitioning mode (GPM), reordering a plurality of merge motion candidates in a GPM candidate list associated with the target block, wherein reordering the plurality of motion candidates comprises: reordering the plurality of motion candidates after at least part of a construction process of the GPM candidate list, wherein the plurality of motion candidates in the GPM candidate list is divided into a first number of subgroups and the first number of motion candidates in a subgroup is predefined; and generating a bitstream of the target block using the plurality of reordered merge motion candidates. (Current lists all the same elements as recite in Claim 1 above, but in “CRM form” instead, and is therefore on the same premise.)
Prior Art Citations
7. The following List of PA, made of record and not relied upon, is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
7.1. Patent documentation
US 11,212,523 B2 H04N19/105; H04N19/70; H04N19/51; Chiu; et al.
US 12489917 B2 H04N19/119; H04N19/159; H04N19/167; Ma; et al.
US 12170768 B2 H04N19/593; H04N19/52; H04N19/119; Zhang; Li et al.
US 12621434 B2 H04N19/105; H04N19/70; H04N19/119; Zhang; Na et al.
US 12652394 B2 H04N19/139; H04N19/52; H04N19/109; Deng; et al.
US 12,022,085 B2 H04N19/154; H04N19/11; H04N19/91; Chang; et al.
US 12,160,574 B2 H04N19/139; H04N19/52; H04N19/105; Chang; et al.
US 20220385888 A1 H04N19/105; H04N19/186; H04N19/119; Lee; et al.
7.2. Non-Patent documentation:
_ Combination of GPM and template matching; Liao - April-2021;
_ Exploration experiment on Enhanced compression beyond VVC; Seregin - April-2021;
Conclusions
8. In view of above Examiner’s considerations, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1 .I 36(a). See also See MPEP 5 706.07(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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from Examiner should be directed to LUIS PEREZ-FUENTES (luis.perez-fuentes@uspto.gov) whose phone number is (571) 270 -1168. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-
5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, WILLIAM VAUGHN can be reached on (571) 272-1168. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned 571- 272- 3922. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LUIS PEREZ-FUENTES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481.
Prosecution Insights