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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 of the Applicant’s Remarks, the Applicant argues that, “Xu does not mention OBMC at all. The coding tools discussed in Xu are limited to palette mode, along with other possible modes mentioned in the background (such as intra, inter), but Xu does not specifically disclose or suggest OBMC. Additionally, in Xu, if local dual tree is applied, chroma blocks (particularly those smaller than a certain threshold) are not allowed to use the palette based coding mode, while luma blocks can still use the palette mode (see Xu, paragraphs 0133-0135). In the present application, however, when local dual tree is applied, for luma blocks, it is further determined whether OBMC should be applied, adding an extra decision step where it may be determined not to apply OBMC for luma samples under local dual tree. This differs from Xu.”
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s Remarks. The Applicant is mischaracterizing the Examiner’s rejection. Independent claim 1 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN et al. (Hereafter, “Chen”) [US 2021/0014536 A1] in view of XU et al. (Hereafter, “Xu”) [US 2024/0089485 A1] in further view of FRANCOIS et al. (Hereafter, “Francois”) [US 2022/0086493 A1].
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually. Where an applicant’s reply establishes that each of the applied references fails to teach a limitation and addresses the combined teachings and/or suggestions of the applied prior art, the reply as a whole does not attack the references individually as the phrase is used in Keller and reliance on Keller would not be appropriate. This is because “[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to [a PHOSITA].” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Independent claim 1 states, “in response to determining that a local dual tree partition is applied, determining whether to apply overlapped block motion compensation (OBMC) to the plurality of luma coding blocks to generate prediction samples of the video frame.” Thus, the determination of whether the application of the coding tool/mode to the luma blocks is done in response to the blocks being local dual tree partition.
Xu discloses the determination of whether a block is under a local dual tree structure and the block being a specific color component (luma or chroma). Based on the local dual tree structure and specific color component determination, the palette based coding mode is either allowed or disallowed [See Xu, 0018-0019].
Therefore, Xu discloses that the determination if the palette based coding mode is allowed or disallowed is determined in response to the block is under a local dual tree structure and/or the specific color component of the block. Thus, it would have been known in the art that a coding tool/mode could be enabled or disabled in response to the block being of a specific color component and/or under the local dual tree structure.
On page 8 of the Applicant’s Remarks, the Applicant argues that, “Xu's invention solves problems specific to palette mode, such as avoiding the use of palette mode on small blocks under a local dual tree, or simplifying its update logic (see Xu, paragraphs [0124]-[0125]). This is different from OBMC, which is a filtering technique for improving motion compensation accuracy, in terms of the technical problem to be solved, the application scenario, and the technical effect.”
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s Remarks. The Applicant is mischaracterizing the Examiner’s rejection. Independent claim 1 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN et al. (Hereafter, “Chen”) [US 2021/0014536 A1] in view of XU et al. (Hereafter, “Xu”) [US 2024/0089485 A1] in further view of FRANCOIS et al. (Hereafter, “Francois”) [US 2022/0086493 A1].
Chen discloses that when a test condition is satisfied, the current block can be encoded or decoded using a current inter mode selected from a modified group of inter tools which includes OBMC [See Chen, 0042-0043]. Further, Chen discloses that the test condition may depend on a temporal layer of a current slice. [See Chen, 0048]. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the test condition could be the type of current slice (i.e., I-slice, P-slice, or B-slice). Chen discloses that the I-slice can have separate tree structures while the P-slice and B-slice tree structure can be applied simultaneously [See Chen, 0012]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that if test condition was based on the temporal layer of the current slice (I-slice) then the tree structure (separate trees) would be known. Thus, the test condition would include the separate trees of the I-slice.
Xu discloses the enabling and disabling of palette based coding mode for encoding the block in response to the block being of a specific color component and under the local dual tree structure [0019]. Thus, Xu discloses the determination of whether a block is under a local dual tree structure and the block being a specific color component (luma or chroma). Based on the local dual tree structure and specific color component determination, the palette based coding mode is either allowed or disallowed [See Xu, 0018-0019].
Chen and Xu are both determining whether certain coding modes/tools are being used/allowed based on specific conditions of the blocks. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Chen’s system to use a test condition for the determination of the use of a coding tool such as OBMC with the enabling and disabling of palette based coding mode for encoding the block in response to the block being of a specific color component and under the local dual tree structure as taught by Xu.
On pages 8-9, the Applicant argues the use of Francois to support the combination of the references.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s Remarks. As stated in the non-final rejection mailed 11/25/2025, Chen and Xu disclose that different coding tools/modes are being enabled and disabled based on specific conditions. However, Chen and Xu fail to explicitly disclose that both palette mode and overlapped block motion compensation (OBMC) can both be enabled or disabled in the same system. Francois discloses that video coding tools can be enabled and disabled, wherein the coding tools include at least Palette mode and Overlapped block motion compensation (OBMC) [Table 2].
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that both palette mode and OBMC are included in the coding tools/modes are available for enablement and disablement in the same video coding system.
On pages 9-10 of the Applicant’s Remarks, the Applicant argues that the combination of Xu's component-based disabling/enabling of a tool (palette mode) with Francois' controllability of tools (OBMC) into Chen would not have been obvious and none of the cited references, alone or combined, anticipates, teaches, or suggests the recitations of Claim 1.
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s Remarks. Obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, references are in the same field of methods or arrangements for coding, decoding, compressing, or decompressing digital video signals (CPC classification H04N 19/00). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Chen with the teachings of Xu and Francois. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”).
The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "'[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.'" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: … (G) Some Teaching, Suggestion, or Motivation in the Prior Art That Would Have Led One of Ordinary Skill To Modify the Prior Art Reference or To Combine Prior Art Reference Teachings To Arrive at the Claimed Invention. See MPEP 2141, Section III.
According to the MPEP 2143, Section I, Section G, to reject a claim based on the rationale (G) [Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.], the Examiner must resolve the Graham factual inquires:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings:
In this case, Chen discloses that when a test condition is satisfied, the current block can be encoded or decoded using a current inter mode selected from a modified group of inter tools which includes OBMC [See Chen, 0042-0043].
Xu discloses the enabling and disabling of palette based coding mode for encoding the block in response to the block being of a specific color component and under the local dual tree structure [0019].
Francois discloses that video coding tools can be enabled and disabled, wherein the coding tools include at least Palette mode and Overlapped block motion compensation (OBMC) [Abstract and Table 2].
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success;
Chen discloses that when a test condition is satisfied, the current block can be encoded or decoded using a current inter mode selected from a modified group of inter tools which includes OBMC) [See Chen, 0042-0043]. Further, Chen discloses that the test condition may depend on a temporal layer of a current slice. [See Chen, 0048]. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the test condition could be the type of current slice (i.e., I-slice, P-slice, or B-slice). Chen discloses that the I-slice can have separate tree structures while the P-slice and B-slice tree structure can be applied simultaneously [See Chen, 0012]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that if test condition was based on the temporal layer of the current slice (I-slice) then the tree structure (separate trees) would be known. Thus, the test condition would include the separate trees of the I-slice.
Francois discloses that video coding tools can be enabled and disabled, wherein the coding tools include at least Palette mode and Overlapped block motion compensation (OBMC) [Table 2].
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquires may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Chen’s system to use a test condition for the determination of the use of a coding tool such as OBMC with the enabling and disabling of palette based coding mode for encoding the block in response to the block being of a specific color component and under the local dual tree structure as taught by Xu and with the known coding tools for enablement and disablement in an encoder/decoder system being at least palette mode and OBMC as taught by Francois.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649. "[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal-and even common-sensical-we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references." Id. at 1368, 80 USPQ2d at 1651. Thus, the statements above show that a prima facie case supporting the obviousness rejections of independent claim 1 has been established through at least the rationale G listed above.
On page 10 of the Applicant’s Remarks, the Applicant argues that, “Independent Claims 6, 11 and 16, include similar recitations as Claim 1, and are thus allowable at least for similar reasons set forth above.”
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s Remarks. Please see the above extensive remarks regarding the combinations of the references.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN et al. (Hereafter, “Chen”) [US 2021/0014536 A1] in view of XU et al. (Hereafter, “Xu”) [US 2024/0089485 A1] in further view of FRANCOIS et al. (Hereafter, “Francois”) [US 2022/0086493 A1].
In regards to claim 1, Chen discloses a method for video decoding ([0038] A method and apparatus of video coding for a video encoding system or video decoding system are disclosed.), comprising: obtaining a plurality of coding blocks within a video frame ([0200] According to this method, input data associated with a current block in a current image from a video sequence is received in step 2010.), wherein the plurality of coding blocks comprise at least one chroma coding block and a plurality of luma coding blocks ([0007] The terms coding tree block (CTB), coding block (CB), prediction block (PB), and transform block (TB) are defined to specify the 2-D sample array of one colour component associated with CTU, CU, PU, and TU, respectively. Thus, a CTU consists of one luma CTB, two chroma CTBs, and associated syntax elements.); and in response to determining that a local dual tree partition is applied ([0012] For I-slice, the QTBT tree structure usually applied with the luma/chroma separate coding. For example, the QTBT tree structure is applied separately to luma and chroma components for I-slice, and applied simultaneously to both luma and chroma (except when certain minimum sizes being reached for chroma) for P- and B-slices. In other words, in an I-slice, the luma CTB has its QTBT-structured block partitioning and the two chroma CTBs have another QTBT-structured block partitioning. In another example, the two chroma CTBs can also have their own QTBT-structured block partitions.), determining whether to apply overlapped block motion compensation (OBMC) to the plurality of luma coding blocks to generate prediction samples of the video frame ([0042] A method and apparatus of video coding using an Inter mode are disclosed. If a test condition is satisfied, the current block is encoded at an encoder side or decoded at a decoder side using a current Inter mode selected from a modified group of Inter tools, where the modified group of Inter tools is derived from an initial group of Inter tools by removing one or more first Inter tools from the initial group of Inter tools, replacing one or more second Inter tools with one or more complexity-reduced Inter tools, or both. [0043] Said one or more first Inter tools can be selected from a set comprising AMVP (Advanced Motion Vector Prediction), Merge, PMVD (Pattern Matched Motion Vector Derivation), LIC, Affine coding, NPO, OBMC (Overlap Block Motion Compensation) or a combination thereof. [0048] Whether the test condition is satisfied may depend on a temporal layer of current slice, where the current slice includes the current block. The temporal layer is referring to the layer associated with the temporal structure of pictures (e.g. I, B and P pictures).).
Xu discloses a method for video decoding ([0018] Aspects of the disclosure provide methods and apparatuses for video encoding/decoding.), comprising: obtaining a plurality of coding blocks within a video frame, wherein the plurality of coding blocks comprise at least one chroma coding block and a plurality of luma coding blocks ([0080] a CTU includes three coding tree blocks (CTBs), which are one luma CTB and two chroma CTBs); and in response to determining that a local dual tree partition is applied, determining whether to apply overlapped block motion compensation (OBMC) to the plurality of luma coding blocks to generate prediction samples of the video frame ([0019] In another example, the processing circuitry disallows the palette based coding mode for encoding the block in response to the block being of a luma component and under the local dual tree structure.).
Chen and Xu disclose different coding tools being enabled and disabled based on specific conditions.
However, Francois discloses that video coding tools can be enabled and disabled, wherein the coding tools include at least Palette mode and Overlapped block motion compensation (OBMC) [Table 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Chen’s system to use a test condition for the determination of the use of a coding tool such as OBMC with the enabling and disabling of palette based coding mode for encoding the block in response to the block being of a specific color component and under the local dual tree structure as taught by Xu and with the known coding tools for enablement and disablement in an encoder/decoder system being at least palette mode and OBMC as taught by Francois in order to improve coding efficiency through the enablement and disablement of coding tools.
In regards to claim 2, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Chen discloses wherein the plurality of coding blocks are under one same coding tree ([0012] For I-slice, the QTBT tree structure usually applied with the luma/chroma separate coding. For example, the QTBT tree structure is applied separately to luma and chroma components for I-slice, and applied simultaneously to both luma and chroma (except when certain minimum sizes being reached for chroma) for P- and B-slices. In other words, in an I-slice, the luma CTB has its QTBT-structured block partitioning and the two chroma CTBs have another QTBT-structured block partitioning. In another example, the two chroma CTBs can also have their own QTBT-structured block partitions.).
Claim 6 lists all the same elements of claim 1, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 6.
Claim 7 lists all the same elements of claim 2, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 7.
Claim 11 lists all the same elements of claim 1, but in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 11.
Claim 12 lists all the same elements of claim 2, but in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 12.
Claim 16 lists all the same elements of claim 1, but in computer readable storage medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 16.
Claim 17 lists all the same elements of claim 2, but in computer readable storage medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 17.
Claim(s) 3, 8, 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Xu in further view of Francois in even further view of LIU et al. (Hereafter, “Liu”) [WO 2020/016858 A1].
In regards to claim 3, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Chen fails to explicitly disclose wherein determining whether to apply overlapped block motion compensation (OBMC) to the plurality of luma coding blocks to generate prediction samples of the video frame comprises: in response to determining that the plurality of luma coding blocks are uni-predictive, applying the OBMC to the plurality of luma coding blocks to generate the prediction samples of the video frame.
Liu discloses wherein determining whether to apply overlapped block motion compensation (OBMC) to the plurality of luma coding blocks to generate prediction samples of the video frame comprises: in response to determining that the plurality of luma coding blocks are uni-predictive, applying the OBMC to the plurality of luma coding blocks to generate the prediction samples of the video frame ([00220] OBMC is only enabled for uni-predicted PU/CU/block/sub- block.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Chen with the uni-prediction of the blocks as taught by Liu in order to provide higher coding efficiency [See Liu].
Claim 8 lists all the same elements of claim 3, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 3 applies equally as well to claim 8.
Claim 13 lists all the same elements of claim 3, but in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 3 applies equally as well to claim 13.
Claim 18 lists all the same elements of claim 3, but in computer readable storage medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 3 applies equally as well to claim 18.
Claim(s) 4, 9, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Xu in further view of Francois in even further view of Liu in even further view of “CE10.2.1: OBMC” by Lin et al. (Hereafter, “Lin”).
In regards to claim 4, the limitations of claim 3 have been addressed. Chen fails to explicitly disclose wherein applying the OBMC to the plurality of luma coding blocks comprises: updating boundary prediction samples of the plurality of luma coding blocks.
Lin discloses wherein applying the OBMC to the plurality of luma coding blocks comprises: updating boundary prediction samples of the plurality of luma coding blocks ([Section 2.6] To reduce the line buffer size, if the current block is at a CTU row boundary, then the number of blended lines for OBMC is reduced from 4 to 2.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Chen with the decreasing of the number of blended lines for OBMC at CTU row boundaries as taught by Lin in order to reduce the complexity of the OBMC method [See Lin].
Claim 9 lists all the same elements of claim 4, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 4 applies equally as well to claim 9.
Claim 14 lists all the same elements of claim 4, but in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 4 applies equally as well to claim 14.
Claim 19 lists all the same elements of claim 4, but in computer readable storage medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 4 applies equally as well to claim 19.
Claim(s) 5, 10, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Xu in further view of Francois in even further view of Bordes et al. (Hereafter, “Bordes”) [US 2022/0021869 A1].
In regards to claim 5, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Chen discloses further comprising: in response to determining that the local dual tree partition is applied ([0012] For I-slice, the QTBT tree structure usually applied with the luma/chroma separate coding. For example, the QTBT tree structure is applied separately to luma and chroma components for I-slice, and applied simultaneously to both luma and chroma (except when certain minimum sizes being reached for chroma) for P- and B-slices. In other words, in an I-slice, the luma CTB has its QTBT-structured block partitioning and the two chroma CTBs have another QTBT-structured block partitioning. In another example, the two chroma CTBs can also have their own QTBT-structured block partitions.).
Bordes discloses disabling the OBMC for the at least one chroma coding block ([0124] In one embodiment, OBMC is not performed chroma blocks.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Chen with the known disabling of OBMC for chroma blocks in certain embodiments and certain conditions as taught by Bordes in order to improve picture encoding and decoding.
Claim 10 lists all the same elements of claim 5, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 5 applies equally as well to claim 10.
Claim 15 lists all the same elements of claim 5, but in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 5 applies equally as well to claim 15.
Claim 20 lists all the same elements of claim 5, but in computer readable storage medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 5 applies equally as well to claim 20.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kaitlin A Retallick whose telephone number is (571)270-3841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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.
/KAITLIN A RETALLICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights