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 .
Applicant(s) Response to Official Action
The response filed on 06/09/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Presented arguments have been fully considered, but some are rendered moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment(s) initiated by the applicant(s). Examiner fully addresses below any arguments that were not rendered moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Summary of Arguments:
Regarding claims 1-5, 7, and 9-20 Applicant argues that ¶00105, ¶00106, and § 4, Bullet 26.3 of the original disclosure fully support the amended claims.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding claims 1-5, 7, and 9-20, Examiner contends the listed parts of the original disclosure does not provide support for at least “in response to the further region comprising an inter-coded region and the inter- coded region comprising at least one inter predicted samples, the method further comprises: determining…; storing…” in exemplary claim 1. Neither the determining step nor the storing step being “in response to the further region comprising an inter-coded region and the inter- coded region comprising at least one inter predicted samples” are supported by the original disclosure. The Applicant did not provide support for using “intra mode information” that is “perceived as unavailable” “in a succeeding process in the conversion, the succeeding process comprising a deblocking process”. The Applicant did not provide support for “storing the intra mode information for the target subblock” that is “perceived as unavailable” “based on the determination”.
Accordingly, Examiner maintains the rejections.
Claim Interpretation
Exemplary independent claim 1 recites:
in response to the target subblock comprising an intra-coded region and a further region, the intra-coded region comprising at least one intra-coded sample, obtaining intra mode information of the at least one intra-coded sample in the intra-coded region as the intra mode information of the target subblock,
wherein in response to the further region comprising an inter-coded region and the inter- coded region comprising at least one inter predicted samples, the method further comprises:
determining, based on coded information for the target video block, whether the intra mode information for the target subblock is… equal to an intra mode of the intra-coded region; and
storing the intra mode information for the target subblock based on the determination.
The claim elements “obtaining intra mode information of the at least one intra-coded sample in the intra-coded region as the intra mode information of the target subblock” and “the intra mode information for the target subblock is… equal to an intra mode of the intra-coded region” are being interpreted as “the intra mode information of the target subblock” = “intra mode information of the at least one intra-coded sample in the intra-coded region as the intra mode information of the target subblock”. Therefore, the claim elements above will be wholly interpreted as:
in response to the target subblock comprising an intra-coded region and a further region, wherein the further region comprising an inter-coded region and the inter-coded region comprising at least one inter predicted samples:
obtaining intra mode information of the at least one intra-coded sample in the intra-coded region as the intra mode information of the target subblock;
storing the intra mode information for the target subblock.
The Applicant did not specify what the “coded information for the target video block” (firstly introduced on amendment filed on 11/18/2025). The Examiner will interpret “coded information for the target video block” as the “splitting information” (i.e. the coded information includes but not limited to splitting information (such as GPM partition mode, and/or GPM partition angle, and/or GPM partition direction), and/or weight index, and/or the GPM block/subblock location, and/or the GPM block/subblock dimensions- section 24(4)- current specification) of target block. The selected “splitting information” is defined at the beginning of the claim (i.e. geometric portioning tool) to have the block split as shown in fig. 26; the “obtaining intra mode information of the at least one intra-coded sample in the intra-coded region as the intra mode information of the target subblock” is by default based on the “splitting information”/ “coded information”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 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. Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claims are supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “wherein in response to the further region comprising an inter-coded region and the inter- coded region comprising at least one inter predicted samples, the method further comprises: determining, based on coded information for the target video block, whether the intra mode information for the target subblock is perceived as unavailable, or equal to an intra mode of the intra-coded region; and storing the intra mode information for the target subblock based on the determination, wherein the intra mode information is perceived as unavailable, and wherein the intra mode information is used in a succeeding process in the conversion, the succeeding process comprising a deblocking process”.
When an amendment is filed in reply to an objection or rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, a study of the entire application is often necessary to determine whether or not "new matter" is involved. Applicant should therefore specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. MPEP 2163.06 I.
The Applicant did not specifically point out the support for “in response to the further region comprising an inter-coded region and the inter- coded region comprising at least one inter predicted samples, the method further comprises: determining… wherein the intra mode information is perceived as unavailable, and wherein the intra mode information is used in a succeeding process in the conversion”.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are 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 1-5 and 7-20 recite “whether the intra mode information for the target subblock is perceived as unavailable, or equal to an intra mode of the intra-coded region; and storing the intra mode information for the target subblock based on the determination”. For the case where the “intra mode information for the target subblock is perceived as unavailable”, it is not clear whether what is being stored, if anything, when the “mode information for the target subblock is perceived as unavailable”.
The claims further recite “wherein the intra mode information is perceived as unavailable, and wherein the intra mode information is used in a succeeding process in the conversion, the succeeding process comprising a deblocking process”. It is not clear how the “succeeding process in the conversion” can be used when it is “perceived as unavailable”. No reasonable interpretation for using a “intra mode information” that is “perceived as unavailable” could be formulated by the Examiner in light of the Original Disclosure.
The term “perceived as unavailable”, in the context it is used, renders the claims indefinite and/or ambiguous.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1, 18, 19 and 20 recite the broad recitation “the intra mode information for the target subblock is perceived as unavailable, or equal to an intra mode of the intra-coded region”, and the claim also recites “wherein the intra mode information is perceived as unavailable” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLIFFORD HILAIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-8397. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30-1400.
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, SATH V PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at (571)272-7455. 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.
CLIFFORD HILAIRE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2488
/CLIFFORD HILAIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights