DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 04/15/2026 as a Request for Continued Examination filed on 05/13/2026.
In the filed response, claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, and 13 have been amended, where claims 1, 6, and 11 are independent claims.
Accordingly, Claims 1-15 have been examined and are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/13/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 03/30/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-13, filed 04/15/2026, 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 Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.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, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of prior art Helle et al. US 10,708,629 B2 (PTO 892), hereinafter referred to as Helle. Please see examiner’s responses below.
4. In Applicant's remarks (pgs. 11-12), Applicant notes Chuang at most discloses a single-level signaling scheme which utilizes a single flag (i.e. CU_inherit_flag) to both enable the inheritance mechanism and indicate the use of the inheritance mechanism for the current block. As such, Applicant appears to assert Chuang’s single flag performs the functions of both the first and second flags as claimed and therefore does not employ the required two-tiered signaling scheme that uses both flags. After careful consideration, the examiner agrees that Chuang does not reasonably address having two separate flags as claimed. As such, further searches yielded the work of Helle as discussed below.
5. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 1, Helle is deemed relevant art. For example, Helle’s inheritance scheme is indicated by a binary-valued sharing flag (e.g. col. 50 lines 9-67) which enables the coding parameters (e.g. intra prediction modes) to be shared between blocks. As such, said sharing flag can be construed as the claimed “first flag”, i.e. it “indicates whether signaling of an inherited intra mode is enabled on a current video block”. Further, Helle’s merge flag is believed to control the current block’s inheritance of prediction parameters (e.g. intra prediction modes) of the candidate blocks, since merged blocks use/share the same prediction parameters (col. 37 lines 20-27 and col. 38 lines 25-30). Thus, said merge flag can be construed as indicating “whether the current block is to be predicted using the inherited intra mode” as claimed given its BRI. As a side note, the work of Zhang et al. US 2019/0320171 A1 shows that in the merge mode, parameters may be inherited from the neighboring block wherein the motion information is obtained from. Alternatively, even for the merge mode, one flag to indicate whether to inherit or signal parameters may be further signaled (see ¶0102 of Zhang), where said flag can be understood as the one that enables the inheritance mechanism. In light of the foregoing, Helle’s flags are deemed control flags in relation to the disclosed inheritance scheme. Lastly, Helle also appears to teach and/or suggest the ordering of the aforementioned flags. For e.g., the sharing flag can be interleaved with the bits signaling quad-tree subdivision (e.g. col. 54 lines 54-63 with reference to fig. 6a), while the syntax elements specifying the merging could be interleaved with the prediction parameters that are transmitted for each leaf node of the quadtree structure (col. 37 lines 20-27). As such, the quad-tree subdivision must be signaled first before the prediction parameters are sent to the quad-tree structure. Since the sharing flag is interleaved with the bits signaling the subdivision, this suggests the sharing flag must come before the merge flag. Also please note the inheritance scheme in fig. 13. For these reasons, which are further elaborated on in the office action below, the examiner respectfully submits the work of Helle, reasonably teaches and/or discloses, either alone or in combination, all of the disclosed features of claim 1 given their BRI. The same also applies to claims 6 and 11 which recite similar limitation. Please see below for further details.
6. 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.
7. Accordingly, Claims 1-15 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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 1-2, 6-7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Helle et al. US 10,708,629 B2, hereinafter referred to as Helle, where Helle describes inheritance in a sample array multitree subdivision (e.g. abstract). Please see below for details.
Regarding claim 1. (Currently Amended) Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Helle discloses and/or teaches, “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 [See for e.g. the binary string representation in fig. 6A (col. 54 lines 30-63) which can include sharing flag f, i.e. a first flag], wherein the first flag indicates whether signaling of an inherited intra mode is enabled on a current video block [Said sharing flag f identifies whether Helle’s inheritance scheme is enabled (e.g. col. 50 lines 9-67, col. 51 lines 53-67, col. 52 lines 1-10)]; in response to determining that the inherited intra mode is enabled on the current video block based on the first flag [If the sharing flag f has a value of ‘1’, then the inheritance scheme is realized (e.g. col. 51 lines 53-67, col. 52 lines 1-10), else it is not], obtaining a second flag at a signaled level [Refer to Helle’s merge flag (col. 37 lines 20-27 and col. 38 lines 25-30)], wherein the second flag indicates whether the current video block is to be predicted using the inherited intra mode [Helle’s merge flag is believed to control the current block’s inheritance of prediction parameters (e.g. intra prediction modes – e.g. col. 19 lines 33-36) of the candidate blocks, since merged blocks use/share the same prediction parameters (col. 37 lines 20-27 and col. 38 lines 25-30)], and wherein the inherited intra mode is an intra mode used for a previously decoded video block.” [Please refer to for e.g. figs. 9A-9B with respect to neighboring candidate blocks (e.g. B and A) that were previously coded before the current block X]
Regarding claim 2. (Original) Helle teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Helle further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the inherited intra mode 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 [When Helle’s merge flag is equal to ‘1’, the shared coding parameters (e.g. intra prediction mode) can be construed as being inherited from a previously decoded block. See citations in claim 1 for support with respect to figs. 9A-9B], and the intra mode is used as a current intra mode for the current video block.” [Please refer to figs. 9A-9B and corresponding text]
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 col. 57 lines 38-67 and col. 58 lines 1-24 of Helle for support.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 2.
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 and software, please see col. 57 lines 38-67 and col. 58 lines 1-24 of Helle for support.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 3, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helle, in view of Chuang et al. US 2018/0109814 A1, hereinafter referred to as Chuang.
Regarding claim 3. (Currently Amended) Helle teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Although Helle discloses the two flags of claim 1, Helle does not appear to address the features of claim 3. Chuang on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggests “further comprising: in response to determining that the current video block is coded using the inherited intra mode [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], 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 indicating an inherited mode used in the current video block.” [Support is provided in the same citations above] Given Chuang’s techniques, 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 work of Helle for inheritance in sample array multitree subdivision (abstract), with the teachings of Chuang above related to coding unit information inheritance with respect to BT partitions for achieving improved coding efficiency (e.g. ¶0006).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 4-5, 9-10, and 14-15 are 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. In light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of records, when considering the claims as a whole. The prior art of record, taken individually or in combination fail to explicitly teach or render obvious within the context of the respective independent claims the limitations:
4. (Original) The method for video decoding of claim 3, further comprising: in response to determining that only one inherited candidate exists, obtaining a default index for the inherited mode.
5. (Original) The method for video decoding of claim 3, 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.
9. (Original) The apparatus for video decoding of claim 8, wherein the instructions are further executed by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to: in response to determining that only one inherited candidate exists, obtain a default index for the inherited mode.
10. (Original) The apparatus for video decoding of claim 8, wherein the instructions are further executed by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to: binarize 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.
14. (Previously Presented) The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein the method further comprises: in response to determining that only one inherited candidate exists, obtaining a default index for the inherited mode.
15. (Previously Presented) The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein the method further comprises: 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO 892 for additional references.
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