Detailed Office Action
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR l.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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR l.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/10/2026 has been entered.
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 (1, 18. 19 and 20) are the four (4) independent claims on record, being amended.
3.1. The Examiner undersigned thanks Applicant’s representative (Atty. C. Donofrio; Reg. No. 80,115) for the new list of amendments provided, clearly stated remarks and for the cooperation expediting the case.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments received on 02/10/2026 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 VVC standard;
as analogously and detailed disclosed in the presented PA [Liao/Chang], that for the most part was still part of the common knowledge way before the invention was made/filed.
4.2. As a matter of claim interpretation, the PTO 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 clearly 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 this requirement, and therefore, the undersigned considers that no allowable subject matter has been yet identified, so that further amendments are necessitated moving forward, to differentiate from the recorded PA, (section 8).
5. Regarding Applicant arguments/remarks;
5.1. Applicant argues that the combination of PA on record fails to disclose the amended feature ["reordering a plurality of merge candidates in a GPM candidate list associated with the target block", page 12]; the Examiner respectfully disagrees, because under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the instant specification and the common knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the fact that no antecedent ordering step disclosed in the filing, as a basic for the following reordering step to be applied, at least Liao discloses a Table construction, with plurality of merge candidates in a GPM list, associated with the processed CU, by definition indexed and ordered, in order to be accessible during IN/OUT data retrieving [page 1-2].
In addition, Chang similarly discloses Table (Fig. 3; [2: 32]), of MV candidates for GPM mode [3: 12; 13: 16; 15: 14], wherein reordering/pruning of candidates is similarly applied (e.g. checking ordering updated [Chang; 3: 12; 12: 33; 15: 14]).
5.2. Applicant further argues – failure to disclose – (predefining motion candidates in a subgroup of the GPM candidate list; [page 12]); the Examiner also disagrees, because under the same BRI, Liao teaches MV sample(s) blending (i.e. grouping) based on geometric/angle split patterns; Table 1 (Column 1).
Similarly, Chang discloses (e.g. sample candidates in the list are divided in sub-groups based on [i.e. pattern, angle, offsets, weight, template-match] characteristics, Fig. 3; wherein the sample values along GPM are adjusted; [Chang; Col. 13])
5.3. For additional rationale and motivation associated with new amendments, please see Rejection section (6-7) for details.
5.4. 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.
Claim rejection section
35 USC 112
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(B) 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.
6.1. Independent Claims (1, 18. 19 and 20) and the correspondent dependencies, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as per the claims recites the feature limitations “a first number of sub-groups” and “a predefined first-number of candidates”), however there is insufficient antecedent basis for the origination and/or characterization of the cited above element types in the claims and/or specs as originally filed.
See also [MPEP 2173.02; …limitations/features in the claims should not been ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention. If the claim language, (given its broadest reasonable interpretation) is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under “35 U.S.C. 112 (b)” is appropriate.
Even when the [specs] enables “subgroup of candidates” (in at least Fig. 20; [0204]), the [specs] fails to support the origination of the newly added elements, as now claimed in the amendments. Proper correction and/or clarification is required moving forward.
35 USC 103 rejection
7. 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.
7.1. 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.
7.2. Claims (1 -20) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao; et al. (“Combination of GPM and template matching – April-2021”; hereafter “Liao”) in view of Chang; et al (US 12,160,574 B2; with Provisional benefit of Jun-2021]; hereafter “Chang”).
Claim 1. (Currently Amended) Liao discloses the invention substantially as claimed - A method of video processing, comprising: (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]);
determining, during a conversion between a target block of a video and a bitstream of the video, (e.g. see codec implementation for conversion of the same; [pag. 1-2]) a coding mode applied to the target block (e.g. target CU coded in GPM; [Ch. 2]);
in response to the coding mode being a geometric partitioning mode (GPM), (e.g. target CU coded in GPM; [Ch. 2]); reordering a plurality of merge candidates in a GPM candidate list associated with the target block, (e.g. see Table 1 where the list is signaled and indexed, by definition (i.e. allocated data indexation is required in the Table, in order to be selected and signaled); [Ch. 1-2]).
wherein the plurality of motion candidates in the GPM candidate list is divided into a first number of sub-groups and the first 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; wherein the sample values along GP are adjusted using blending/grouping; [Chang; Col. 13]);
and performing the conversion using the reordered plurality of reordered merge motion candidates; (e.g. see Table construction, with plurality of merge candidates in a GPM list, associated with the processed CU, by definition indexed and ordered, in order to be accessible during IN/OUT data retrieving [Ch. 1-2].)
Given the teachings of Liao as a whole, and under the obvious assumption and purpose of his papers, it is noted that some of the functional steps/components as listed (i.e. no encoder/decoder schematic disclosed), are missed or not fully described in the papers.
For the purpose of additional clarification and structural support of the coded architecture, Chang discloses (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].
Chang further teaches (e.g. merge candidate list construction, as shown in Table (Fig. 3; [2: 32]), of MV candidates for GPM mode [3: 12; 13: 16; 15: 14], wherein reordering/pruning of candidates is similarly applied (e.g. checking ordering updated [Chang; 3: 12; 12: 33; 15: 14]).
Chang similarly teaches - list reordering/pruning suing the first MV candidate for group optimization and prediction efficiency, in at least [Chang; 16: 55 -17: 10])
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].)
Claim 2. (Original) Liao/Chang 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]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 3. (Original) Liao/Chang 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; 3: 10; 12: 30; 13: 35; 14: 10]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 4. (Original) Liao/Chang 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; 3: 10; 12: 30; 13: 35; 14: 10]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 5. (Original) Liao/Chang 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]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 6. (Original) Liao/Chang 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]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 7. (Original) Liao/Chang 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]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 8. (Original) Liao/Chang 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 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]);
Claim 10. (Original) Liao/Chang 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; 3: 10; 12: 30; 13: 35; 14: 10]);
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; 3: 10; 12: 30; 13: 35; 14: 10]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 11. (Original) Liao/Chang 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; 3: 10; 12: 30; 13: 35; 14: 10]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 12. Liao/Chang 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; 3: 10; 12: 30; 13: 35; 14: 10]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 13. (Original) Liao/Chang 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]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 14. (Original) Liao/Chang 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].)
Claim 15. (Currently Amended) Liao/Chang 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 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 also [Liao; page 1-2] and [Chang; Col. 14]);
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].)
Claim 16. (Original) Liao/Chang 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, reordering/pruning capabilities, when GPM mode is used; [Chang; 3: 10; 12: 30; 13: 35; 14: 10]), 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 generating a bitstream of the target block using the plurality of reordered merge 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 11,671,616 B2 Zhang; et al. H04N19/513; H04N19/51; H04N19/137; H04N19/105;
US 11,611,743 B2 Zhang; et al. H04N19/105; H04N19/176; H04N19/119;
US 12,382,014 B2 Zhang; et al. H04N19/103; H04N19/176; H04N19/105;
US 12,101,468 B2 Zhang; et al. H04N19/46; H04N19/132; H04N19/52; H04N19/105;
US 12,041,255 B2 Chen; et al. H04N19/46; H04N19/11; H04N19/105; H04N19/132;
US 12,160,574 B2 Chang; et al. H04N19/139; H04N19/52; H04N19/105; H04N19/159;
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. 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.