DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 05/20/2026.
In the filed response, claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 18 have been amended, where claims 1, 9, and 18 are independent claims. Further, claim 17 has been cancelled, with claims 4-5 and 12-16 being previously cancelled.
Accordingly, Claims 1-3, 6-11, and 18 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-10, filed 05/20/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections of the instant claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration of the amended claims, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Please see below for details.
2. After carefully considering the art of record (notably Naser, Wang, and Kotra) in light of Applicant’s remarks, the examiner finds they do not reasonably address the amended features of the instant claims given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Naser describes using TIMD for generating a MPM list (e.g. abstract and fig. 7), however, Naser is silent with respect to the requirement that a top neighboring block be present in the same CTU as the current block. Although ¶0210 of Wang teaches when a current block, the plurality of templates associated with the current block, and the plurality of template-reference samples associated with the plurality of templates are collocated within the same CTU, the coding tool applied to said block is DIMD versus TIMD as required. Since Naser and Wang do not appear to reasonably address whether a TIMD mode candidate is equal to at least one of an intra prediction mode or an IPM intra prediction mode of a top neighboring block when the top neighboring block is present in the same CTU as the current block, as recited in amended claim 1, both prior art are overcome. As to Kotra, Kotra does not teach TIMD but rather describes disabling the DIMD coding tool for coding units whose top borders are aligned with and concur with CTB borders, i.e. there are borders between CTBs (e.g. pg. 16 lines 29-34 and pg. 17 line 1 with reference to fig. 4). Similar to Naser and Wang, Kotra also does not reasonably address the features of amended claim 1. Thus, the art of record is overcome for claim 1 and also for claims 9 and 18 which recite similar limitations.
3. However, after further considering the claims in light of the amendments, the examiner finds the limitation “the TIMD mode is derived based on a TIMD mode candidate equal to at least one of an intra prediction mode or an IPM intra prediction mode of the top neighboring block”, as recited in amended claim 1 and as similarly recited in amended claims 9 and 18, to be ambiguous, particularly with respect to distinguishing between an “intra prediction mode” or “an IPM intra prediction mode” of the top neighboring block. For the reasons discussed below, it is unclear how these two modes are to be interpreted. As such, claims 1-3, 6-11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
4. The Examiner is available to discuss the matters of this office action to help move the Instant Application forward. Please refer to the conclusion to this office action regarding scheduling interviews.
5. Accordingly, Claims 1-3, 6-11, and 18 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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 1-3, 6-11, and 18 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “wherein, based on the top neighboring block being present in the same CTU as the current block, the TIMD mode is derived based on a TIMD mode candidate equal to at least one of an intra prediction mode or an IPM intra prediction mode of the top neighboring block” (emphasis added). The foregoing limitation shows the TIMD mode candidate can be equal to at least one of an intra prediction mode or an IPM intra prediction mode of the top neighboring block, however, it is not entirely clear how these two modes differ from each other. The only distinguishing feature is the term “IPM” used in the latter mode, which is understood to also mean “Intra Prediction Mode”. In other words, the limitation can be read as “equal to at least one of an intra prediction mode or an Intra Prediction Mode intra prediction mode of the top neighboring block”. The filed specification also does not appear to provide further clarification. For example, para 239 pg. 47 appears to recite what is claimed (i.e., a method of using intra mode or IPM intra mode information…). For these reasons, it is difficult to unequivocally ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim given the ambiguity in the aforementioned features.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 6-8, these depend on claim 1 above, and therefore include all of its features. In light of the TIMD mode candidate of claim 1, it is further unclear what is meant by “a TIMD mode candidate other than the at least one of the intra prediction mode or the IPM intra prediction mode…” of claim 6. For the same reasons presented above, claims 2-3 and 6-8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, both recite similar limitations as claim 1 above. For the same reasons presented, claims 9 and 18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claims 10-11, these depend on claim 9 above, and therefore include all of its features. For the same reasons presented, claims 10-11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 pm.
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.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights