DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 01/26/2026.
In the filed response, independent claims 37, 44, and 50 have been amended. Further, claims 41-42, 48, and 54-55 have been canceled and new claims 57-61 have been added.
Accordingly, Claims 37-40, 43-47, 49-53, and 56-61 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-8, filed 01/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claims 37, 44, and 50 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive, as the previously indicated allowable subject matter of claims 42 and 55 (and intervening claims) has been incorporated. Therefore, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However upon further consideration, and for the reasons given below, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Park et al. US 2024/0214560 A1 (with reference to Foreign Application Priority Data KR 10-2021-0120860 – please see attached), hereinafter referred to as Park.
2. Applicant’s amendments to claim 37 include the limitations of now canceled claims 41 and 42. As amended, claim 37 currently reads “set a planar mode as a first mode of the first MPM list; reorder the remaining modes of the first MPM list based on a first reordering process to obtain the reordered first MPM list” (emphasis added). Given the limitation is specifically with respect to the first MPM list, versus having an option of the first MPM list or the second MPM list as previously recited in claims 41 and 42 (for e.g. “set a planar mode as a first mode of the first MPM list or the second MPM list for the current block”), the examiner respectfully submits there is a change in scope. As such, Park is introduced to address the aforementioned features. In particular, Park, is brought in for deriving a Most Probable Modes (MPM) List and reordering one or more candidate modes in the MPM List (e.g. abstract). As to “set a planar mode as a first mode of the first MPM list;”, Park discloses various diagrams that show the planar mode is set to the first mode in the MPM list. For e.g., see figs. 11A-11B and figs. 12A-12B, although there are other similar examples presented. If the planar mode is positioned as the first mode, as shown, this indicates it must have been previously set. These same figures also address “reorder the remaining modes of the first MPM list based on a first reordering process to obtain the reordered first MPM list”, where the reordering is understood to occur between A and B of both figures (e.g. from 11A to 11B). As can be seen, the planar mode stays fixed, however, the remaining modes are reordered. The examiner would also like to point out the text corresponding to fig. 7 (e.g. ¶0118-¶0120), where the planar mode may be added as the first candidate mode in the MPM list. Further, when reordering the candidate modes in the MPM list, the template-based sum of absolute transformed differences for the remaining candidate modes, excluding the planar mode, may be calculated. For these reasons, the work of Park is deemed relevant. Corresponding support can also be found in the priority documentation, where the reordering diagrams appear throughout pgs. 11-17 of the document. The priority document also provides support for fig. 7 on pg. 8. Thus, in light of the foregoing, the examiner respectfully submits that prior art Zhu, Jhu, and Park reasonably teach and/or suggest, either alone or in combination, all of the disclosed features of the instant claims, given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Please see office action below for details.
3. Examiner also points out the work of Heo et al. US 2022/0132102 A1 (PTO 892) which is also deemed relevant art, particularly with respect to fig. 14 (c) which shows a reordering of the MPM list, where the Planar mode at the first position remains fixed while the other modes are reordered.
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 37-40, 43-47, 49-53, and 56-61 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 37-40, 44-47, and 50-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. WO 2020/224660 A1, in view of Jhu et al. US 2024/0283924 A1 (with reference to Provisional Application No. 63/275,438), and in further view of Park et al. US 2024/0214560 A1 (with reference to Foreign Application Priority Data KR 10-2021-0120860 – please see attached), hereinafter referred to as Zhu, Jhu, and Park, respectively.
Regarding claim 37, Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Zhu is found to teach and/or suggest “A device for video decoding [¶0011 refers to a video decoder], comprising: a processor configured to: generate a most probable mode (MPM) list for a current block [See abstract and fig. 15 regarding constructing two or more Most Probable Modes (MPM) lists for a current block], wherein the MPM list comprises a first MPM list and a second MPM list [Same as above, where first and second MPM lists are determined via different construction methods]; set a planar mode as a first mode of the first MPM list [See Zhu (¶0094 and ¶00272) where the Planar mode can be set to the first position in the list. For further support, please refer to Park below]; reorder the remaining modes of the first MPM list based on a first reordering process to obtain the reordered first MPM list; [Although Zhu discusses reordering (e.g. ¶00221 and ¶00383), the reordering does not appear to be as claimed. For direct support, please see Park below]; reorder the second MPM list based on a second reordering process to obtain the reordered second MPM list [Zhu however does not address this feature. Please see Jhu below for corresponding support], wherein the second reordering process is different than the first reordering process [Zhu however does not address this feature. Please see Jhu below for corresponding support]; and perform prediction for the current block based on the reordered first MPM list and the reordered second MPM list.” [Zhu however does not address this feature. Please see Jhu below for corresponding support] Although Zhu’s teachings above are deemed relevant, they appear to be silent with respect to reordering the second MPM list. On the other hand, the work of Jhu from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “reorder the second MPM list based on a second reordering process to obtain the reordered second MPM list [Contrary to Jhu’s first MPM list, the second list is identified as a non-MPM list (figs. 13-15) which can also be reordered via different schemes. Given that Jhu’s lists are both mode lists, the disclosed teachings are deemed relevant, as constructing such lists are within the level of skill in the art], wherein the second reordering process is different than the first reordering process [See for e.g. ¶0233-¶0234, i.e. different thresholds may be used for the reordering process. Jhu’s work also shows the MPM list and the non-MPM list can be reordered via the DIMD and TIMD schemes as in ¶0227 and ¶0230, for example, i.e. they are different]; and perform prediction for the current block based on the reordered first MPM list and the reordered second MPM list.” [The decoding process (fig. 3) can be performed based on the above methods described in Jhu] Unlike Zhu’s teachings for constructing two MPM lists, Jhu describes constructing a MPM list and a non-MPM list, however, since both lists can be reordered via different processes, Jhu’s teachings are deemed relevant, given the BRI of the claim. Thus, 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 coding techniques of Zhu to add the teachings of Jhu as above to help improve coding efficiency or to facilitate simplifying the signaling of intra prediction modes (e.g. ¶0002). As to “set a planar mode as a first mode of the first MPM list; reorder the remaining modes of the first MPM list based on a first reordering process to obtain the reordered first MPM list”, Zhu shows in ¶0094 and ¶00272 that the Planar mode can be set to the first position in the MPM list, however, both Zhu and Jhu do not address the reordering as claimed. For this reason, the work of Park from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest the aforementioned features. [See for e.g. figs. 11A-11B and figs. 12A-12B with respect to the planar mode being at the first position I the MPM list. As to the reordering, this is understood to occur between A and B of both figures (e.g. from 11A to 11B), where the planar mode stays fixed with the remaining modes being reordered. Also please note fig. 7 (e.g. ¶0118-¶0120). When reordering the candidate modes in the list, “intra_luma_not_planar_flag” may be signaled since the planar mode is fixed as the first mode] In light of Park’s teachings, 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 coding techniques of Zhu and Jhu to add the teachings of Park for deriving a reordered list of Most Probable Modes (MPM) which can improve coding efficiency (e.g. ¶0118).
Regarding claim 38, Zhu, Jhu, and Park teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 37, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Since Zhu does not address the features of clam 38, Jhu from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein the first reordering process is a template-based reordering process and the second reordering process is a decoder-side intra mode derivation (DIMD) reordering process.” [See claim 37 above for support with respect to for e.g. ¶0227 and ¶0230] The motivation for combining Zhu, Jhu, and Park has been discussed in connection with claim 37, above.
Regarding claim 39, Zhu, Jhu, and Park teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 38, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Since Zhu does not address the features of claim 39, Jhu from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein template-based process is a template-based intra mode derivation (TIMD) reordering process [See TIMD information for reordering in for e.g. ¶0229-¶230], and wherein the TIMD reordering process comprises computing a sum of absolute transform difference (SATD) distance for each prediction mode of the first MPM list.” [Please refer to SATD in ¶0110 with respect to TIMD] The motivation for combining Zhu and Jhu has been discussed in connection with claim 37, above.
Regarding claim 40, Zhu, Jhu, and Park teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 38, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Since Zhu does not address the features of claim 40, Jhu from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein the DIMD reordering process comprises computing a histogram of scores associated with prediction modes in the second MPM list and reordering the prediction modes based on the computed histogram of scores associated with the prediction modes.” [See ¶0227 regarding the HoG] The motivation for combining Zhu and Jhu has been discussed in connection with claim 37, above.
Regarding claim 44, claim 44 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 37.
Regarding claim 45, claim 45 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 38.
Regarding claim 46, claim 46 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 39.
Regarding claim 47, claim 47 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 40.
Regarding claim 50, claim 50 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 37 since decoding and encoding are inverse processes that allow compressed video data to be decompressed and reconstructed at a destination device. Please see for e.g. figs. 1-3 of Jhu for support.
Regarding claim 51, claim 51 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 38.
Regarding claim 52, claim 52 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 39.
Regarding claim 53, claim 53 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 40.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 43, 49, and 56-61 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. 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:
43. The device of claim 37, wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a first portion of a first set of bits associated with prediction modes in the reordered first MPM list using syntax coding; and receive a second portion of the first set of bits associated with the prediction modes in the reordered first MPM list and a second set of bits associated with prediction modes in the reordered second MPM list using bypass coding.
49. The method of claim 44, further comprising: receiving a first portion of a first set of bits associated with prediction modes in the reordered first MPM list using syntax coding; and receiving a second portion of the first set of bits associated with the prediction modes in the reordered first MPM list and a second set of bits associated with prediction modes in the reordered second MPM list using bypass coding.
56. The device of claim 50, wherein the processor is further configured to: send a first portion of a first set of bits associated with prediction modes in the reordered first MPM list using syntax coding; and send a second portion of the first set of bits associated with the prediction modes in the reordered first MPM list and a second set of bits associated with prediction modes in the reordered second MPM list using bypass coding.
57. (New) The device of claim 37, wherein the processor is further configured to: code a first set of bits associated with the reordered first MPM list using a first coding method; and code a second set of bits associated with the reordered second MPM list using a second coding method, wherein the second coding method is different than the first coding method.
58. (New) The device of claim 57, wherein the first coding method is a syntax-based coding method and the second coding method is a bypass coding method.
59. (New) The method of claim 44, further comprising: coding a first set of bits associated with the reordered first MPM list using a first coding method; and coding a second set of bits associated with the reordered second MPM list using a second coding method, wherein the second coding method is different than the first coding method.
60. (New) The device of claim 50, wherein the processor is further configured to: code a first set of bits associated with the reordered first MPM list using a first coding method; and code a second set of bits associated with the reordered second MPM list using a second coding method, wherein the second coding method is different than the first coding method.
61. (New) The device of claim 60, wherein the first coding method is a syntax-based coding method and the second coding method is a bypass coding method.
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