CTFR 18/431,245 CTFR 83615 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-14, 16-20 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. Acknowledgement of Amendments Applicants’ amendments filed 02/03/2026 overcomes the following objection(s)/rejection(s): The objection to the specification has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection for claim 10 and 19 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection for claim 20 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1, 10, 11, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In this instance, the disclosure does not support the newly claimed limitation “deriving at least one intra prediction mode of the current block by applying at least one offset to an angle indicated by the first intra prediction mode, when the first intra prediction mode is the directional mode” as recited in claim 1, claim 11 and claim 20; “obtaining offset information from a bitstream; and deriving the at least one offset using the offset information” as recited in claim 10; “encoding, into a bitstream, offset information for specifying the at least one offset” as recited in claim 19. Claims 2-4, 6-9, 12-14, 16-18 are rejected based upon claim dependency. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-4, 6, 10-12, 14, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0347094 A1) in view of Lim et al,. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0051288 A1) . As per claim 1, Su teaches a video decoding method comprising: constructing a candidate list of intra prediction modes based on at least one neighboring region of a current block (abstract, fig. 5, fig, 10 and [0050], [0055], “.. the process 500 identifies a candidate set (subset) of directional intra prediction modes from the plurality of directional intra prediction modes”); generating prediction pixels respectively corresponding to candidate modes in the candidate list by applying the candidate modes in the candidate list to reference pixels of a first region adjacent to the current block ([0051]); for each of the candidate modes in the candidate list, calculating a cost value between the prediction pixels and reconstructed pixels of the first region ([0061], “.. an optimal directional intra prediction mode can be selected to predict the current block by testing each directional intra prediction mode in the candidate set of directional intra prediction modes using the set of previously coded pixels to predict the current block, and selecting the directional prediction mode that provides the best compression (e.g., fewest bits,…” ); determining a first intra prediction mode, based on the cost value (fig. 5, fig. 10-12; and [0061-0063]); determining, an intra prediction mode of the current block, based on the first intra prediction mode (fig. 5 and [0063]); and generating a prediction block of the current block, based on the intra prediction mode of the current block (fig. 5-6, fig. 10 and [0021-0022], [0051-0053], [0061], [0073]), wherein determining the intra prediction mode of the current block comprises: determining whether the first intra prediction mode is a non-directional mode or a directional mode ( abstract, [0021-0022]; [0034] and fig. 5, 10). Although Su discloses various directional intra prediction modes can be used to propagate pixel values from previously coded along an angular line, that is, in directions offset from the horizontal and/or vertical to predict a block, Su does not explicitly disclose deriving at least one intra prediction mode of the current block by applying at least one offset to an angle indicated by the first intra prediction mode, when the first intra prediction mode is in the directional mode . However, Lim teaches deriving at least one intra prediction mode of the current block by applying at least one offset to an angle indicated by the first intra prediction mode, when the first intra prediction mode is in the directional mode ([0292]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lim with Su for the benefit of providing improved image coding. As per claim 2 , Su (modified by Lim) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, Su teaches wherein the first region is at least one of a top region, a left region, or a top left region of the current block ([0051], [0070]). As per claim 4 , Su (modified by Lim) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, Su teaches wherein the first intra prediction mode is a candidate mode used to generate a prediction pixel having a minimum cost value (fig. 5, fig. 10-12; and [0061-0063]). As per claim 6 , Su (modified by Lim) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. Su does not explicitly disclose the candidate list of the intra prediction modes are constructed based on intra prediction modes of neighboring blocks. However, Lim teaches the candidate list of the intra prediction modes are constructed based on intra prediction modes of neighboring blocks (fig. 25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lim with Su for the benefit of providing improved image coding. As per claim 10 , Su (modified by Lim) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. Su does not explicitly disclose obtaining offset information from a bitstream; and deriving the at least one offset using the bitstream information . However, Lim teaches obtaining offset information from a bitstream n( [0086-0088],[0292] and fig. 7) and deriving the at least one offset using the bitstream information ([0086-0088],[0292] and fig. 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lim with Su for the benefit of providing improved image coding. As per claim 11 , which is the corresponding video encoding method with the limitations of the video decoding method as recited in claim1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here. As per claim 12 , which is the corresponding video encoding method with the limitations of the video decoding method as recited in claim 2, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 2 also applies here. As per claim 14 , which is the corresponding video encoding method with the limitations of the video decoding method as recited in claim 4, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 4 also applies here. As per claim 19 , which is the corresponding video encoding method with the limitations of the video decoding method as recited in claim 10, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 10 also applies here. As per claim 20 , which is the corresponding method for providing a video decoding apparatus with video data with the limitations of the video decoding method as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here. In addition, Su teaches encoding the video data into a bitstream ( fig. 1, 3-4); and transmitting the bitstream to video decoding apparatus (fig. 1, 3-4) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3, 9, 13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0347094 A1) in view of Lim et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0051288 A1) and further in view of Ray et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0329800 A1) . As per claim 3 , Su (modified by Lim) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, Su does not explicitly disclose wherein the first region is determined based on candidate modes in the candidate list. However, Ray teaches wherein the first region is determined based on candidate modes in the candidate list ([0082] and fig. 6, “given a current CU 160, a video coder (e.g., video encoder 200 or video decoder 300) selects two template regions (e.g., above current CU 160 and left of current 160) and selects the reference samples of the templates correspondingly. For each mode in the MPM list, the video coder may generate a prediction for the template region …”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Ray with Su (modified by Lim) for the benefit of providing improved video compression. As per claim 9 , Su (modified by Lim) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. Su does not explicitly disclose setting the intra prediction mode as the intra prediction mode of the current block, when the first prediction mode is the non-directional mode. However, Ray teaches setting the intra prediction mode as the intra prediction mode of the current block, when the first prediction mode is the non-directional mode ([0127]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Ray with Su (modified by Lim) for the benefit of providing improved video compression. As per claim 13 , which is the corresponding video encoding method with the limitations of the video decoding method as recited in claim 3, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 3 also applies here. As per claim 18 , which is the corresponding video encoding method with the limitations of the video decoding method as recited in claim 9, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 9 also applies here . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0347094 A1) in view of Lim et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0051288 A1) and further in view of Kang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0274215 A1) . As per claim 7 , Su (modified by Lim) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. Ray does not explicitly disclose generating the candidate list of the intra prediction modes, based on occurrence frequencies of intra prediction modes of neighboring blocks. However, Kang teaches generating the candidate list of the intra prediction modes, based on occurrence frequencies of intra prediction modes of neighboring blocks (fig. 47-53; 0507-0508). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kang with Su (modified by Lim) in order to yield encoding/decoding an image having an improved compression efficiency, [0004]. As per claim 16 , which is the corresponding video encoding method with the limitations of the video decoding method as recited in claim 7, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 7 also applies here . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0347094 A1) in view of Lim et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0051288 A1) and further in view of Li et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/007284 A1) . As per claim 8 , Ray (modified by Lim) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. Su does not explicitly disclose determining a second intra prediction mode by applying a Sobel operation to the first region; and constructing the candidate list of the intra prediction modes, based on the second intra prediction mode. However, Lim teaches determining a second intra prediction mode (fig. 25); and constructing the candidate list of the intra prediction modes , based on the second intra prediction mode (fig. 25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lim with Su for the benefit of providing improved image coding. Su (modified by Lim) does not explicitly disclose determining deriving intra the intra prediction mode by applying a Sobel operation to the first region. However, Li teaches deriving intra prediction mode by applying a Sobel operation to the first region ([0159], [0162]; “the Sobel operation can emphasize regions of high spatial frequency corresponding to edges with the corresponding directions in the image block”.. and “the use of pre-calculated features such as those described above, (e.g., mean and variance of the pixel values of the current block, filter –(Sobel filter) based direction features.. can provide effective description of the current block and contain vital information that can lead to the right choice of an intra-prediction mode for the current block”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Li with Su (modified by Lim) for the benefit of improving coding efficiency. As per claim 17 , which is the corresponding video encoding method with the limitations of the video decoding method as recited in claim 8, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 8 also applies here. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action. Contact Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1821. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30 P.M.. 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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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. JESSICA PRINCE Examiner Art Unit 2486 /JESSICA M PRINCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486 Application/Control Number: 18/431,245 Page 2 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 18/431,245 Page 3 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 18/431,245 Page 4 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 18/431,245 Page 5 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 18/431,245 Page 6 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 18/431,245 Page 7 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 18/431,245 Page 8 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 18/431,245 Page 9 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 18/431,245 Page 10 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 18/431,245 Page 11 Art Unit: 2486
Prosecution Insights