DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 11/10/2025.
In the filed response, Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 11-15 have been amended, where Claims 1, 6, and 11 are independent claims.
Accordingly, Claims 1-15 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see examiner’s responses below.
2. Applicant argues (pgs. 12-13 of remarks) Chuang’s “inheritance list” includes candidate coded blocks as opposed to candidate coded modes as required in claim 1. Further, the Applicant asserts Chuang’s “CU_inherit_index” does not directly indicate an inherited mode used in the current video block but instead indicates which candidate coded block in the inheritance list may be selected as the reference coded block, allowing the current block to inherit the intra mode of that reference coded block. As such, it is argued that Chuang does not meet the requirements of the inherited list and the index recited in amended claim 1.
3. Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged, however after careful consideration, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. Although Chuang’s inheritance list may not ‘explicitly’ include candidate coded modes, it contains candidate coded blocks with each having inherited CU information that can include a coded mode (e.g. a prediction mode/intra mode) corresponding to the previous N coded blocks, neighboring blocks, etc. See for e.g. ¶0026-¶0028. Thus, given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of “obtaining an index of an inherited list, the index directly indicating an inherited mode used in the current video block”, the prior art teachings are deemed relevant, since Chuang’s “inheritance list” can be indexed via a “CU_inherit_index”. This in turn, directly indicates inherited CU information of a selected candidate coded block which can include the coded mode (e.g. intra mode/prediction mode). Therefore, one skilled in the art of video coding would recognize that intra modes/prediction modes (i.e. coded modes) are implicit in said “inheritance list”, since they are associated with the plurality of candidate coded blocks in the list. For these reasons, said “inheritance list” can be reasonably understood as including the coded modes through the CU information of each coded block. Given Chuang’s teachings and recognizing claim 1 does not further limit the “inherited list” or the “index” of the inherited list, the examiner respectfully submits prior art Chuang reasonably teaches and/or suggests, either alone or in combination, the aforementioned features of claim 1, given their BRI. The same rationale also applies to claims 6 and 11. Please see office action below for details.
4. Considering amended claim 13, it was realized the claim, which recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream to be decoded by a method for video decoding, the method comprising…” from its dependency on claim 11, is a product by process claim limitation where the product is a bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. This applies to claims 11-15. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 13 via claim 11, merely serves as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore the structure bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by any prior art which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream. Please see details below.
5. Applicant’s response and amendment regarding the objection to the specification (title of the invention) are acknowledged. As such, the objection is withdrawn.
6. Applicant’s response and amendment regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 are acknowledged. As such, the rejection is withdrawn.
7. Examiner also acknowledges Applicant’s amendment to fig. 8 (pg. 10 of remarks) based on support from paragraphs 00137-00138 of the specification.
8. 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.
9. In light of the foregoing, Claims 1-15 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chuang et al. US 2018/0109814 A1, hereinafter referred to as Chuang, where Chuang describes a decoder using coding unit information inheritance so as to help improve coding efficiency (e.g. abstract and ¶0006). Please see below for details.
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Chuang teaches and/or suggests “A method for video decoding, comprising: obtaining a first flag in a transform block (TB), a coding block (CB), a slice, a picture, or a sequence level, wherein the first flag indicates whether signaling of an inherited intra mode is enabled on a current video block [See for e.g. ¶0026 with respect to the “CU_inherit_flag” indicating whether current block information (for e.g. prediction mode, intra mode, etc.) should be inherited from block information of one of the coded blocks, i.e. reference block. Said flag can be construed as a first flag.]; and in response to determining that the inherited intra mode is enabled on the current video block based on the first flag [¶0026 shows the condition of when the CU_inherit_flag can be true (set to ‘1’), i.e., is enabled], obtaining a second flag that indicates whether the inherited intra mode is used at a signaled level [¶0021 shows one partition of a bock sharing the properties of another partition of said block (for e.g. an intra mode). Sharing the properties is construed to mean inheriting the properties (¶0023) set by the CU_inherit_flag being true (¶0026). If so, an MPM_flag may be signaled for the one partition at a CU-level]; and in response to determining that the current video block is coded using the inherited intra mode [See ¶0026 above for corresponding support], obtaining an index of an inherited list [¶0027 discloses signaling a “CU_inherit_index” for indicating which block in an inheritance list may be the reference coded block used for CU information inheritance. Also please refer to ¶0051 and ¶0062], the index directly indicating an inherited mode used in the current video block.” [As noted in examiner’s comment #3 and given the BRI of the limitation, see for e.g., ¶0026-¶0028. Chuang’s “CU_inherit_index” points to a candidate coded block in the “inheritance list” of candidate coded blocks, with each block corresponding to CU information, which may include intra mode, i.e. inherited mode. Thus, said index can be understood as indicating an intra mode of a selected candidate coded block to be used for coding the current video block, i.e. an inherited mode]
Regarding claim 2, (Original) Chuang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Chuang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the inherited intra mode [See for e.g. ¶0026 regarding a current block inheriting the CU information (for e.g. the intra mode) of a reference coded block] is an intra mode from a previous decoded TB, a previous decoded CB, a previous decoded slice, a previous decoded picture, or a previous decoded sequence level stored [¶0026 further shows the reference coded block can be a last coded block, a neighboring block or one of the coded blocks in a coded picture (e.g. temporally collocated blocks)], and the intra mode is used as a current intra mode for the current video block.” [Inheriting the CU information (for e.g. the intra mode) of said reference coded block indicates the same CU information gets used for the current block, for e.g. the same intra mode]
Regarding claim 3, (Currently Amended) Chuang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Chuang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the inherited list comprises at least one candidate of following candidates: template-based intra mode derivation (TIMD) coded mode; decoder-side intra mode derivation (DIMD) coded mode; most probable modes (MPM) coded mode; or non-MPM coded mode.” [Recognizing the limitation “at least one candidate of following candidates”, Chuang shows the CU information for candidate/reference blocks in the “inheritance list” may include the DIMD mode or the DIMD derived mode (e.g. ¶0028). Please refer to examiner’s response #3 for details regarding the relevance of Chuang’s teachings]
Regarding claim 4, (Original) Chuang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 3, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Chuang further teaches and/or suggests “further comprising: in response to determining that only one inherited candidate exists [See for e.g. ¶0051 and ¶0062, where an inheritance list may contain a last coded block or one previous coded block, i.e. only one inherited candidate exists], obtaining a default index for the inherited mode. [Chuang’s inheritance index is not explicitly defined as a ‘default’ index when said list contains one candidate. However, a ‘default’ index, given its BRI, can refer to any value of said inheritance index, since the claim does not define the meaning of default.]
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1. As to the claimed hardware and software, please see ¶0037-¶0041 of Chuang for support, with reference to the example apparatus of fig. 3.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 3.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 4.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1. As to the claimed hardware, please see ¶0037-¶0041 of Chuang for support, with reference to the example apparatus of fig. 3.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 4.
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)(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.
Claims 11-15 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. US 2020/0275118 A1, hereinafter referred to as Wang, since this is a product by process claim limitation where the product is a bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream (MPEP §2113). For the reasons discussed above in examiner’s response #4, the storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claims 11-15, merely serves as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Wang below which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream.
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches and/or suggests “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream to be decoded by a method for video decoding, the method comprising: [For the reasons given above, please see for e.g. ¶0048 for storing encoded video data (i.e. bitstream) via a storage device. Also note ¶0250] obtaining a first flag in a transform block (TB), a coding block (CB), a slice, a picture, or a sequence level, wherein the first flag indicates whether signaling of an inherited intra mode is enabled on a current video block; and in response to determining that the inherited intra mode is enabled on the current video block based on the first flag, obtaining a second flag that indicates whether the inherited intra mode is used at a signaled level; and in response to determining that the current video block is coded using the inherited intra mode, obtaining an index of an inherited list, the index directly indicating an inherited mode used in the current video block.” [The aforementioned limitation is not given patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.05(III)]
To help advance prosecution, it is recommended that “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream to be decoded by a method for video decoding, the method comprising” be rewritten to also include “instructions that when executed by a processor, the instructions cause the processor to perform the method for video decoding.”
Regarding claims 12-15, Claims 12-15 depend on claim 11 above, and therefore include all of its features. For this reason, claims 12-15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaung, in view of Zhang et al. US 2018/0048889 A1, hereinafter referred to as Zhang.
Regarding claim 5, (Original) Chuang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 3, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Although Chuang does not explicitly disclose binarizing the inheritance index as required in claim 5, performing a binarization process on an index, or any syntax element, would have been apparent to a skilled person in the art of video coding, so as to help reduce signaling overhead. As such, performing the features of claim 5 would have been within the level of skill in the art. Nonetheless, and in the spirit of compact prosecution, Zhang from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to address these features. “further comprising: binarizing an index of the inherited intra mode, wherein variable sets of binary codewords for binarizing the index of the inherited intra mode are derived by one of following binarization processes: a fixed length binarization process, a Truncated Rice binarization process, a Truncated unary binarization process, a Truncated Binary (TB) binarization process, a k-th order Exp-Golomb (EGk) binarization process, or a limited k-th order Exp-Golomb (EGk) binarization process.” [See for e.g. ¶0166 with respect to binarizing the derived modes (DM) index via truncated unary binarization. Although Zhang does not explicitly teach an inheritance index, unlike Chuang, Zhang does disclose applying one of the claimed binarization processes to an index employed in intra video coding. As such, applying this to any other syntax element would have been within the level of skill in the art] Given Zhang’s teachings above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the clamed invention to modify the techniques disclosed by Chuang for coding unit information inheritance (e.g. abstract), which can include prediction mode/intra mode, to add the video coding methods of Zhang as above in order to help improve coding efficiency (e.g. ¶0147).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 5.
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.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