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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the remark entered on December 2, 2025.
Claim 1-20 pending in the instant application.
Claims 1 & 19-20 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/02/2025, page 8 with respect to the objection of to the Abstract has been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Abstract continues to recite language in the alternative. The Examiner recommends omitting the phrase, “are described,” to obviate the objection.
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/02/2025, page 9 with respect to obviating the nonstatutory double patenting rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/02/2025, page 9 with respect to the rejection of claim 20 under 35 USC 112(b) has been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. While the 112(b) rejection is withdrawn, amending the preamble to a video bitstream introduces the rejection of claim 20 under 35 USC 101 and 102(a)(1) as outlined below.
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/02/2025, page 9-10 with respect to the rejection of claim 1, and similarly claims 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant asserts that Lim1 does not disclose ordering of all of P available intra prediction modes and grouping all of the P modes and indexing the intra mode groups and indexing positions within each intra mode group.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Paragraph [0091], Lim1 discusses of the decoder 610 generates list of remaining modes, the list of non-MPMs, reading as the P available intra prediction modes, that may be sorted in ascending order according to the mode numbers of the intra modes, and the intra modes sorted in ascending order may be divided into a plurality of groups, wherein divide the non-MPMs into plurality of groups with assigned group index numbers ‘i,’ wherein M is number of groups being 4, 8 and 16, each group containing respective Ni number of non-MPM intra modes.
Thus, Lim1 discloses ordering of all of P available intra prediction modes and grouping all of the P modes and indexing the intra mode groups and indexing positions within each intra mode group. Therefore the rejection of claim 1, and similarly claims 19-20 is maintained under 35 USC 103.
Applicant’s remarks filed 12/02/2025, pages 9-10, with respect to the patentability of claims 2-6 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant relies on the patentability of the claims from which these claims depend to traverse the rejection without prejudice to any further basis for patentability of these claims based on the additional elements recited.
Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant because the combination of Lim1 & Lim2 teaches independent claim 1 as outlined below. Thus, claims 2-6 are also rejected for the similar reasons as outlined below.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on December 2, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 12,081,742 B2 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Specification
The Abstract is objected to because it contains phrases in the alternative. The phrase, “[v]arious schemes […] are described,” is requiring the reader to go into the specification for further detail. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: An incorrect article, “an,” precedes, “an video encoding method,” within the preamble. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets, “an,” as, “a.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is drawn to a, “video bitstream.” Video bitstreams per se do not fit within recognized categories of statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
A claim directed to a computer program itself or signal or carrier wave and/or non-transitory media is non-statutory because it is not:
A process occurring as a result of executing the program, or
A machine programmed to operate in accordance with the program,
A manufacture structurally and functionally interconnected with the program in a manner which enable the program to act as a computer component and realize its functionality, or
A composition of matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim et al. (US 2021/0211653 A1) (hereinafter Lim1).
Regarding claim 20, a video bitstream generated by an video encoding method… is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. 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). Therefore the 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 anticipated by Lim1 which recites in Paragraph [0058], wherein the encoder 250 encodes the quantized transform coefficients using a coding scheme such as CABAC to generate a bitstream.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-6 & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2021/0211653 A1) (hereinafter Lim1) in view of Lim et al. (US 2011/0292994 A1) (hereinafter Lim2).
Regarding claim 1, Lim1 discloses a method for performing intra prediction for a current block of a coded video stream [Abstract, Video decoding apparatus acquiring information for efficient signaling of an intra prediction mode for predicting a current block], comprising:
receiving the coded video stream [Paragraph [0066], Decoder 610 decodes compressed bitstream] comprising a set index for intra prediction of the current block [Paragraph [0074] & [0081], Decoder 610 parses intra identification information (e.g., group index), as set index];
ordering P intra prediction modes available for coding the current block into an ordered intra prediction mode list according to a reference intra prediction mode being used for encoding at least one neighboring block of the current block in the coded video stream, P being an integer larger than 1 [Paragraph [0080]-[0081] & [0086]-[0133], non-MPM list comprising P intra prediction modes available, the list of non-MPMs may be sorted in ascending order according to the mode numbers of the intra modes, all according to the 1-bit MPM flag as reference intra prediction mode being used for encoding];
dividing the ordered intra prediction mode list of the P intra prediction modes into M intra prediction mode sets, each intra prediction mode set comprising Ni position-indexed intra prediction modes, M being an integer larger than 1, Ni being a number of prediction modes in ith intra prediction mode set, and i being an integer among 1 to M [Paragraph [0080]-[0081] & [0086]-[0133], Decoder 610 generates list of remaining modes, the list of non-MPMs may be sorted in ascending order according to the mode numbers of the intra modes, and the intra modes sorted in ascending order may be divided into a plurality of groups, wherein divide the non-MPMs into plurality of groups with assigned group index numbers ‘i,’ wherein M is number of groups being 4, 8 and 16, each group containing respective Ni number of non-MPM intra modes]; and
identifying a target intra prediction mode among the P intra prediction modes by using the set index to select a target intra prediction mode set from the M intra prediction mode sets [Paragraph [0080]-[0081] & [0086]-[0133], Video decoding apparatus determines optimal intra mode by evaluating intra modes belonging into group, as the manner of division that is specified by group index signaled].
However, Lim1 does not explicitly disclose of receiving the coded video stream comprising a set index and a position index for intra prediction of the current block; and by further using the position index to identify the target intra prediction mode from the target intra prediction mode set.
Lim2 teaches of receiving the coded video stream comprising a set index and a position index for intra prediction of the current block [Paragraph [0095], Encoding unit includes identifying information that identifies a specific prediction group number, as set index, along with a group position index, as position index]; and by further using the position index to identify the target intra prediction mode from the target intra prediction mode set [Paragraph [0095], wherein each prediction group is predetermined with the particular intra prediction modes that will be assigned to each index position within the prediction group].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Lim1 to integrate and implement intra prediction position indexes within a coded video stream in Lim2 as above, to identify the particular intra prediction mode within an intra prediction set with an added benefit of a reduction in total codeword bits need to be transmitted as part of an encoded video signal (Lim2, Paragraph [0095]).
Regarding claim 2, Lim1 and Lim2 disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Lim1 discloses wherein Nmax is a power of 2, Nmax being a maximum among Ni [Paragraph [0094], Non-MPMs divided into 4 groups, with 16 intra modes within each, thus Nmax = 16, and Nmax=16 is 2^3, thus power of 2].
Regarding claim 3, Lim1 and Lim2 disclose the method of claim 2, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Lim1 discloses wherein Ni is chosen from a first number and a second number when M is greater than 2 [Paragraph [0094], Nmax is chosen once number of MPMs, as second number, and number of groups, with Ni intra modes being first number, is chosen].
Regarding claim 4, Lim1 and Lim2 disclose the method of claim 3, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Lim1 discloses wherein Ni is a same value for all M intra prediction mode sets [Paragraph [0094], Non-MPMs divided into 4 groups, with 16 intra modes within each, thus Ni is a same value of 16 in four intra prediction mode sets].
Regarding claim 5, Lim1 and Lim2 disclose the method of claim 3, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Lim1 discloses wherein one of the M intra prediction mode sets includes the second number of intra prediction modes and all other ones of the M intra prediction mode sets include the first number of intra prediction modes [Paragraph [0088] & [0094], Table 1, Out of five intra prediction sets, MPM set intra prediction is 3 MPMs, as second number, and the rest of the four intra prediction sets contain 16 non-MPMs each].
Regarding claim 6, Lim1 and Lim2 disclose the method of claim 3, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Lim1 discloses wherein M=4, and Nmax=16 [Paragraph [0094], Non-MPMs divided into 4 groups, with 16 intra modes within each].
Regarding claim 19, device claim 19 is drawn to the apparatus using/performing the same method as claimed in claim 1. Therefore device claim 19 corresponds to method claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Furthermore, Lim1 discloses the device for performing intra prediction for a current block of coded video stream, comprising a processing circuitry [Paragraph [0065], provided is an apparatus for decoding video data, including a memory and one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform determining most probable modes (MPMs) for a current block of the video data].
Regarding claim 20, video bitstream claim 20 contains limitations similar to those recited in method claim 1. Therefore, video bitstream claim 20 corresponds to method claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Furthermore, Lim1 discloses of a video bitstream generated by an video encoding method [Paragraph [0012]-[0013], decoding of bitstream], a set index; and an indication of a reference intra prediction mode used by at least one neighboring block of the video block, the reference intra prediction mode indicating an ordering of P intra prediction modes prior to the P intra prediction modes being divided into the M indexed intra prediction mode sets [Paragraph [0080]-[0081] & [0086]-[0133], Decoder 610 generates list of remaining P modes, being non-MPM modes when MPM flag, as reference mode, determines that intra mode is not an MPM, and divide the non-MPMs into plurality of groups with assigned group index numbers ‘i,’ wherein M is number of groups being 4, 8 and 16, each group containing respective Ni number of non-MPM intra modes and evaluating intra modes belonging into group, as the manner of division that is specified by group index signaled].
However Lim1 does not disclose of a position index.
Lim2 teaches of a position index for intra prediction of the current block [Paragraph [0095], Encoding unit includes identifying information that identifies a specific prediction group number, as set index, along with a group position index, as position index].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Lim1 to integrate and implement intra prediction position indexes within a coded video stream in Lim2 as above, to identify the particular intra prediction mode within an intra prediction set with an added benefit of a reduction in total codeword bits need to be transmitted as part of an encoded video signal (Lim2, Paragraph [0095]).
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 DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
/DANIEL CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights