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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: on lines 3-4, the claim refers to canceled claim language in “the plurality of intra prediction modes”.
Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities: on lines 9-10, the claim refers to “the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” when the preamble only mentions a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The method steps of claims 36 and 38-40 do not have to be given weight because there is no functional relationship between the medium and the computer (see MPEP 2111.05(III) titled MACHINE-READABLE MEDIA). The computer-readable storage medium serves as a support for the data (i.e. the bitstream) which is not used by the computer for any other purpose. The computer-readable storage medium is merely serving as support for data created by the method.
The Examiner recommends adding instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium which cause a processor to generate a bitstream. As currently amended, the computer program is separated from the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and executed on a processor which may not even have any connection to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Further, see citations for claim 21 below.
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.
Claims 21, 23, 28, 30, 36, 38 and 41-44 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. The amended claim language “the intra prediction mode of the intra prediction is determined based on an angle for the GPM” or similar language in the listed dependent claims was not found in the Applicant’s Specification as filed and the Applicant has not cited any support for the amendment in the Remarks dated 12/4/25.
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 36-40 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.
After the Applicant’s amendment on 12/4/25, claim 36 is now directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store and transmit a bitstream, but then goes on to list only bitstream generation steps with no mention of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium or any transmitting steps relating to the bitstream. Moreover, it is unclear if this claim is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium or a method since the body of the claim only contains bitstream generation steps (i.e. encoding steps), which are two distinct categories of statutory subject matter. It appears the Applicant is attempting to mix two statutory categories of claims.
Claims 38-40 are also rejected as a result of including the same non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 36.
Claim 41 is 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.
The claim is a method for sending a bitstream when this is usually an encoding step, but then goes on to discuss decoding. It is unclear if the Applicant is attempting to claim an encoding method or a decoding method as the steps are mixed in claim 41 while the preamble appears to imply this is an encoding claim.
Claim 43 is 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.
It is unclear how a single instruction to perform generating the bitstream is claimed and then the claim goes on to state the generating involves multiple steps (i.e. multiple instructions). Further, as best understood by the Examiner, the multiple instances of “an instruction” on lines 3-4 are not needed when the preamble already states “instructions comprising:”. In addition, the Examiner also recommends adding a processor to execute the instructions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 36 and 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (U.S. 2021/0144400), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 36, Liu discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store and transmit a bitstream (Liu [0519], [0420] and claim 20) generated by a computer program, wherein, the computer program, when executed by a processor, causes a video encoding apparatus to perform following steps to generate the bitstream: configuring Geometric Partitioning Mode (GPM) information for a target block; performing GPM prediction for the target block using the GPM information; and storing the bitstream comprising the GPM information in the non-transitory computer- readable recording medium, wherein the GPM information comprises information indicating an angle for the GPM, a first block and a second block for the target block are determined, at least one of the first block and the second block is generated by intra prediction, and the intra prediction mode of the intra prediction is determined based on the angle for the GPM (see claim interpretation section above and claim 21).
Regarding claim 38, Liu discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 36 (Liu [0519], [0420] and claim 20), wherein: the intra prediction mode list is configured to comprise the plurality of intra prediction modes based on the angle of the GPM, and the intra prediction mode of the intra prediction is one of the plurality of intra prediction modes in the intra prediction mode list (see claim interpretation section above and claim 23).
Regarding claim 39, Liu discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 36 (Liu [0519], [0420] and claim 20), wherein: the first block is generated using a motion vector difference (see claim interpretation section above and claim 24).
Regarding claim 40, Liu discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 36 (Liu [0519], [0420] and claim 20), wherein: the first block is generated by an Intra Block Copy (IBC) (see claim interpretation section above and claim 25).
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.
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) 21, 24-25, 27-28, 31-32, 34, 41 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidani et al. (U.S. 2023/0109719), hereinafter Kidani in view of Wang et al. (U.S. 2023/0308645), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 21, Kidani discloses an image decoding method, comprising:
configuring Geometric Partitioning Mode (GPM) information for a target block (Kidani [0112]); and
performing GPM prediction for the target block using the GPM information (Kidani [0112]), wherein
a first block and a second block for the target block are determined (Kidani [0112] and [0041]), and
at least one of the first block and the second block is generated by intra prediction (Kidani [0043] and [0110]-[0111]).
Kidani does not explicitly disclose the intra prediction mode of the intra prediction is determined based on an angle for the GPM.
However, Wang teaches the intra prediction mode of the intra prediction is determined based on an angle for the GPM (Wang [0159]-[0160], Table 1 and fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kidani’s method with the missing limitations as taught by Wang to reduce complexity while improving the quality of intra prediction and thereby improving compression performance as a result of selecting the appropriate prediction mode for each block (Wang [0004]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 24, Kidani in view of Wang teaches the image decoding method of claim 21, wherein:
the first block is generated using a motion vector difference (Kidani [0068] and [0110]-[0111]).
Regarding claim 25, Kidani in view of Wang teaches the image decoding method of claim 21, wherein:
the first block is generated by an Intra Block Copy (IBC) (Kidani [0110]-[0111]).
Regarding claim 27, Kidani in view of Wang teaches the image decoding method of claim 21, wherein:
a partitioning mode list of the GPM comprises a plurality of partitioning modes selected by an error cost (Kidani [0191]).
Regarding claim 28, Kidani in view of Wang teaches an image encoding method, comprising: configuring Geometric Partitioning Mode (GPM) information for a target block; and performing GPM prediction for the target block using the GPM information, wherein a first block and a second block for the target block are determined, at least one of the first block and the second block is generated by intra prediction, and the intra prediction mode of the intra prediction is determined based on an angle for the GPM (claim 28 recites analogous limitations to claim 21 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 28 discloses an inverse of decoding and Kidani discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Kidani [0339]-[0340] and fig. 1).
Regarding claim 31, Kidani in view of Wang teaches the image encoding method of claim 28, wherein: the first block is generated using a motion vector difference (claim 31 recites analogous limitations to claim 24 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 31 discloses an inverse of decoding and Kidani discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Kidani [0339]-[0340] and fig. 1).
Regarding claim 32, Kidani in view of Wang teaches the image encoding method of claim 28, wherein: the first block is generated by an Intra Block Copy (IBC) (claim 32 recites analogous limitations to claim 25 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 32 discloses an inverse of decoding and Kidani discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Kidani [0339]-[0340] and fig. 1).
Regarding claim 34, Kidani in view of Wang teaches the image encoding method of claim 28, wherein: a partitioning mode list of the GPM comprises a plurality of partitioning modes selected by an error cost (claim 34 recites analogous limitations to claim 27 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 34 discloses an inverse of decoding and Kidani discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Kidani [0339]-[0340] and fig. 1).
Regarding claim 41, Kidani in view of Wang teaches a method for sending a bitstream, the method comprising: sending the bitstream comprising Geometric Partitioning Mode (GPM) information for a target block (Wang [0069]), wherein the GPM information comprises information indicating an angle for the GPM (Wang [0159] and Table 1), wherein the bitstream is information used to decode the target block (Wang [0069]), wherein a first block and a second block for the target block are determined in the decoding, wherein at least one of the first block and the second block is generated by intra prediction in the decoding, and wherein the intra prediction mode of the intra prediction is determined based on the angle for the GPM in the decoding (see claims 21 and 28).
The same motivation for claim 21 applies to claim 41.
Regarding claim 43, Kidani in view of Wang teaches a non-transitory recording medium storing program instructions (Wang [0770]) for transmitting a bitstream (Wang [0069]), the program instructions comprising: an instruction to perform generating the bitstream (Wang fig. 9); and an instruction to perform transmitting the bitstream (Wang [0069]), wherein the generating the bitstream comprises: generating the bitstream comprising Geometric Partitioning Mode (GPM) information for a target block (Wang [0069]), wherein the transmitting the bitstream comprises: transmitting the bitstream to a video decoding apparatus (Wang figs. 9-10), wherein a video encoding method comprises: configuring the GPM information for the target block; and performing GPM prediction for the target block using the GPM information, wherein the GPM information comprises information indicating an angle for the GPM, wherein a first block and a second block for the target block are determined, wherein at least one of the first block and the second block is generated by intra prediction, and wherein the intra prediction mode of the intra prediction is determined based on the angle for the GPM (see claims 21 and 28).
The same motivation for claim 21 applies to claim 43.
Claim(s) 23, 30, 42 and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidani in view of Wang as applies to claim 21 above, and further in view of Tu et al. (U.S. 2013/0272402), hereinafter Tu.
Regarding claim 23, Kidani in view of Wang teaches the image decoding method of claim 21, wherein: the intra prediction mode list is configured to comprise the plurality of intra prediction modes based on the angle of the GPM (Wang [0159]-[0160], Table 1 and fig. 13).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 23.
Kidani does not explicitly disclose the intra prediction mode of the intra prediction is one of the plurality of intra prediction modes in the intra prediction mode list.
However, Tu teaches , wherein:
the intra prediction mode of the intra prediction is one of the plurality of intra prediction modes in the intra prediction mode list (Tu [0046]).
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 method taught by Kidani in view of Wang with the missing limitations as taught by Tu to reduce redundancy as a result of selecting the appropriate prediction mode for each block (Tu [0016]).
Regarding claim 30, Kidani in view of Wang and Tu teaches the image encoding method of claim 28, wherein: the intra prediction mode list is configured to comprise the plurality of intra prediction modes based on the angle of the GPM, and the intra prediction mode of the intra prediction is one of the plurality of intra prediction modes in the intra prediction mode list (claim 30 recites analogous limitations to claim 23 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 30 discloses an inverse of decoding and Kidani discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Kidani [0339]-[0340] and fig. 1).
The same motivation for claim 23 applies to claim 30.
Regarding claim 42, Kidani in view of Wang and Tu teaches the method of claim 41, wherein: the intra prediction mode list is configured to comprise the plurality of intra prediction modes based on the angle of the GPM, and the intra prediction mode of the intra prediction is one of the plurality of intra prediction modes in the intra prediction mode list (see claims 23 and 30).
The same motivation for claim 23 applies to claim 42.
Regarding claim 44, Kidani in view of Wang and Tu teaches the non-transitory recording medium of claim 43, wherein: the intra prediction mode list is configured to comprise the plurality of intra prediction modes based on the angle of the GPM, and the intra prediction mode of the intra prediction is one of the plurality of intra prediction modes in the intra prediction mode list (see claims 23 and 30).
The same motivation for claim 23 applies to claim 44.
Claim(s) 26 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidani in view of Wang and Zhang et al. (U.S. 2024/0155111), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 26, Kidani in view of Wang teaches the image decoding method of claim 21.
Kidani does not explicitly disclose a refinement using a template matching is applied to the first block.
However, Zhang teaches a method, wherein:
a refinement using a template matching is applied to the first block (Zhang [0935] and [0180]).
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 method taught by Kidani in view of Wang with the missing limitations as taught by Zhang to improve coding efficiency as a result of finding more similar samples (Zhang [0180]-[0181]).
Regarding claim 33, Kidani in view of Wang and Zhang teaches the image encoding method of claim 28, wherein: a first block and a second block for the target block are determined, and a refinement using a template matching is applied to the first block (claim 33 recites analogous limitations to claim 26 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 33 discloses an inverse of decoding and Kidani discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Kidani [0339]-[0340] and fig. 1)).
The same motivation for claim 26 applies to claim 33.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in regard to the newly amended claims have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current grounds of rejection being used in the current rejection, i.e. Wang.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sim et al. (U.S. 2023/0179762) discloses intra prediction modes following geometric partitioning angles (Sim [0125]).
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 MATTHEW KWAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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.
/MATTHEW K KWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482