DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant previously filed claims 1, 2, and 5-20. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1, 19 and 20 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1, 2, and 5-21 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments to correct for the 112 indefiniteness issues raised previously in the claims have been considered, and while they do help correct the issues of the indefinite ranges, they raise new issues of omission of structural relationships which are discussed in the 112 rejection below.
Applicant argues that the combination of Zhang et al. and Zhang 2 fail to teach “the adaptive merge list reordering is not allowed to be applied to a first CIIP variant, or wherein the adaptive merge list reordering is applied to the first CIIP variant, and the adaptive merge list reordering is not allowed to be applied to a second CIP variant”. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, examiner notes that the use of the word “or” means that both cases listed are not necessary to be explicitly considered, and only one of the cases is required to be present in the teachings of the prior art. If applicant intends for both cases to be fully considered, appropriate correction is recommended. In Zhang 2, Paragraph 111, it explicitly teaches “In some example, the mode select unit 203 may select a combination of intra and inter predication (CIIP) mode in which the predication is based on an inter predication signal and an intra predication signal.” This means that the mode select unit may select a CIIP mode which implies that one CIIP mode is selected out of multiple CIIP modes, which inherently implies a first variant and a second variant mode form which a mode is selected. In Paragraph 510, Zhang 2 teaches “Whether to and/or how to reorder the merge candidates may depend on the category of the merge candidates.” and further in Paragraph 530, it teaches “Whether to and/or how to reorder the merge candidates may depend on the coding mode.” Which clearly and unambiguously teaches deciding whether to apply the adaptive merge list reordering depending on the coding mode, which may include a CIIP mode. In Zhang 2, Paragraph 535, it specifies “Alternatively, the reordering method may be different for the CIIP mode and other merge modes.” Which specifies that the determining of whether to and how to perform the reordering applies to specific CIIP mode variants. In light of the above remarks, the claims are rejected as before.
Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In light of the above remarks, the claims are rejected using the same art rejection as before.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1, 2, and 5-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: these claims first describe determining a single CIIP mode associated with the target block, and then recite “a first CIIP variant” and “a second CIIP variant”. Assuming for the purposes of examination that “the first CIIP variant” and “second CIIP variant” are both different variations of the CIIP mode, it is unclear how these variants are structurally connected to the ONE determined CIIP mode. Applicant is required to correct to more particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20220295089 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20220239899 A1 hereinafter referred to as Zhang 2).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang et al. teaches a method of video processing (Abstract), comprising:
determining, during a conversion between a target block of a video and a bitstream of the video, a combined inter and intra prediction (CIIP) mode associated with the target block (Paragraph 122-127);
constructing a merge candidate list associated with the CIIP mode (Paragraph 122-127);
performing an adaptive merge list reordering to the merge candidate list associated with the CIIP mode (Paragraphs 64-82; Paragraphs 114-134); and
performing the conversion based on the reordered merge candidate list (Paragraph 413).
However, Zhang et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein the adaptive merge list reordering is not allowed to be applied to a first CIIP variant, or wherein the adaptive merge list reordering is applied to the first CIIP variant, and wherein the adaptive merge list reordering is not allowed to be applied to a second CIIP variant.
Zhang 2, however, teaches wherein the adaptive merge list reordering is not allowed to be applied to a first CIIP variant, or wherein the adaptive merge list reordering is applied to the first CIIP variant, and wherein the adaptive merge list reordering is not allowed to be applied to a second CIIP variant (Paragraphs 111; Paragraphs 509-535; describes selectively allowing and not allowing reordering to be applied, including to CIIP variants).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the method of video processing of Zhang et al. to include the selective adaptive merge list reordering of Zhang 2, in order to increase compression efficiency (See Zhang 2, Paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang et al. and Zhang 2 teach the method of claim 1, Zhang et al. further teaches wherein the CIIP mode comprises at least one of: a CIIP with merge mode with motion vector differences (MMVD) (Paragraphs 107-112; Paragraphs 387-388), a CIIP with template matching (TM) (Paragraph 178-185; Paragraphs 387-388), a CIIP with affine prediction (Paragraphs 168-177; Paragraphs 387-388), a CIIP with subblock-based temporal motion vector prediction (SbTMVP) (Paragraphs 159-167; Paragraphs 387-388), or a multi-hypothesis prediction (MHP) (Paragraphs 68-72; Paragraph 122-127; Paragraphs 387-388).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang et al. and Zhang 2 teach the method of claim 1, Zhang et al. further teaches wherein the second CIIP variant is a CIIP with affine prediction, and the adaptive merge list reordering is not allowed to be applied to the CIIP with affine prediction (Paragraphs 169-177; Paragraphs 225-234; Paragraphs 341-348; Paragraphs 387-388; Paragraph 535).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang et al. and Zhang 2 teach the method of claim 1, Zhang et al. further teaches wherein a CIIP prediction is generated based on coding information (Paragraph 122-127; Paragraphs 225-234; Paragraphs 341-348; Paragraphs 387-388; Paragraph 535).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang et al. and Zhang 2 teach the method of claim 6, Zhang et al. further teaches wherein the CIIP prediction is an intermediate prediction which constructs a final predication of a CIIP variant (Paragraph 122-127; Paragraphs 225-234; Paragraphs 341-348; Paragraphs 387-388; Paragraph 535).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang et al. and Zhang 2 teach the method of claim 7, Zhang et al. further teaches wherein the CIIP variant comprises one of: a CIIP with MMVD, a CIIP with TM, a CIIP with affine, or a CIIP with sbTMVP (Paragraph 122-127; Paragraphs 225-234; Paragraphs 341-348; Paragraphs 387-388; Paragraph 535).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang et al. and Zhang 2 teach the method of claim 1, Zhang et al. further teaches wherein a weighting value to generate a final prediction for CIIP depends on how intra-prediction and inter-prediction are generated (Paragraph 122-127; Paragraphs 225-234; Paragraphs 341-348; Paragraphs 387-388; Paragraph 535).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang et al. and Zhang 2 teach the method of claim 9, Zhang et al. further teaches wherein the weighting value depends on at least one of: how the inter-prediction is generated, or how the intra-prediction is refined (Paragraph 122-127; Paragraphs 225-234; Paragraphs 341-348; Paragraphs 387-388; Paragraph 535).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang et al. and Zhang 2 teach the method of claim 1, Zhang et al. further teaches determining a merge candidate list for the target block which is coded with a merge mode with motion vector differences (MMVD) mode; determining a plurality of merge candidates that are allowed for the MMVD mode; and performing the conversion comprises performing the conversion based on the plurality of merge candidates (Paragraphs 107-112; Paragraphs 387-388).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang et al. and Zhang 2 teach the method of claim 11, Zhang et al. further teaches wherein the MMVD mode comprises a combined intra and inter prediction (CIIP) with MMVD (Paragraph 122-127; Paragraphs 225-234; Paragraphs 341-348; Paragraphs 387-388; Paragraph 535).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang et al. and Zhang 2 teach the method of claim 11, Zhang et al. further teaches wherein the number of maximum allowed merge candidates for the target block is equal to the number of maximum allowed general merge candidates (Paragraphs 64-69; Paragraph 80).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang et al. and Zhang 2 teach the method of claim 11, Zhang et al. further teaches wherein a merge index of the target block is equal to a value which is greater than a first predetermined number (Paragraphs 107-111).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang et al. and Zhang 2 teach the method of claim 11, Zhang et al. further teaches wherein if the target block is coded with a skip mode, the number of MMVD merge candidates is allowed to be greater than a second predetermined number (Paragraphs 107-111).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang et al. and Zhang 2 teach the method of claim 11, wherein if the target block is coded with a skip mode, an indicated merge index is allowed to be greater than a third predetermined number (Paragraphs 107-111; Paragraph 222; Paragraph 398).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang et al. and Zhang 2 teach the method of claim 11, Zhang et al. further teaches wherein if the target block is coded with a skip mode, a merge index is indicated for the target block, and wherein if the target block is not coded with the skip mode, a merge flag is indicated for the target block (Paragraphs 107-111; Paragraph 222; Paragraph 398).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang et al. and Zhang 2 teach the method of claim 1, Zhang et al. further teaches wherein the conversion includes encoding the target block into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the target block from the bitstream (Paragraphs 5-15).
Claim 19 is drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method claimed in claim 1 above and recites substantially similar limitations which are rejected for the same reasons as used above. Zhang et al. further teaches 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 a method (Paragraphs 12-14) .
Claim 20 is drawn to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions corresponding to the method claimed in claim 1 above and recites substantially similar limitations which are rejected for the same reasons as used above. Zhang et al. further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform a method (Paragraphs 12-14).
Regarding claim 21, Zhang et al. and Zhang 2 teach the method of claim 1, Zhang et al. further teaches storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (Paragraphs 12-14).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights