DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., reordering across the entire prediction candidate list) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The examiner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not limit the interpretation of reordering process of claim 1 to be handled across the entire prediction list in a single instance. The broadest reasonable interpretation would allow for Borders’ process of partitioning the entire prediction list into a subgroup in order to maximize efficiency.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 (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)(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) 1 - 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bordes et al (US 20250024067, hereafter Bordes).
As per claim 1, Bordes discloses an image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising:
constructing a prediction candidate list for a current block (¶ 68; After a merge candidate list is constructed);
deriving an error value for the current block based on whether a reference picture referred to by a prediction candidate in the prediction candidate list is a resampled reference picture (¶ 69; Then, in step 830, the cost of the template matching is computed. The cost of the template matching for a merge candidate is measured by the sum of absolute differences (SAD) between samples of a template of the current block (T) and their corresponding reference samples (Tref). The template T comprises a set of reconstructed samples neighboring to the current block. Reference samples of the template are located by the motion information of the merge candidate and are computed similarly as for the current block prediction samples.); and
reordering the order of the prediction candidate in the prediction candidate list based on the error value, wherein the error value is derived to be a predetermined value based on the reference picture being the resampled reference picture (¶ 69; In step 840, candidates in the sub-group are re-ordered according to the computed costs.).
As per claim 2, Bordes discloses the image decoding method of claim 1,
wherein the order of the prediction candidate in the prediction candidate list are reordered in ascending order based on the error value (¶ 68; Merge candidates in each subgroup are reordered ascendingly according to cost values based on TM), and
wherein the error value is derived to be a predetermined maximum value based on the reference picture being the resampled reference picture (¶ 96; when RPR is enabled or template matching is not used where the cost is replaced by a default cost.).
As per claim 3, Bordes discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the error value is derived based on a difference between a template of the current block and a reference template in the reference picture, based on the reference picture being not the resampled reference picture (¶ 69; The cost of the template matching for a merge candidate is measured by the sum of absolute differences (SAD) between samples of a template of the current block (T) and their corresponding reference samples (Tref).).
As per claim 4, Bordes discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the prediction candidate is any one of a merge candidate of the current block, a temporal candidate of the current block or a non-adjacent candidate of the current block (¶ 68; After a merge candidate list is constructed, merge candidates are divided into several consecutive subgroups.).
As per claim 5, Borders discloses the image decoding method of claim 1,
wherein the prediction candidate includes a first prediction candidate and a second prediction candidate obtained by applying an offset to the first prediction candidate, wherein the prediction candidate list includes a first prediction candidate list including the first prediction candidate and a second prediction candidate list including the second prediction candidate, wherein the constructing comprises constructing the first prediction candidate list, wherein the deriving comprises deriving an error value between the current block and the second prediction candidate based on a reference picture referred to by the first prediction candidate being not the resampled reference picture, and wherein the reordering comprises reordering the order of the second prediction candidate in the second prediction candidate list based on the error value (¶ 92 - 94).
Regarding claim 6, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 7.
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 CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4:30 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, 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.
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights