DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the After-Final Amendment filed on 07/20/2026 and is submitted as a Non-Final for the reasons elaborated on below.
In the filed response, Claims 37, 39, 43, 44, 46, 49, 50, 52, 56, 58, and 61 have been amended, where Claims 1, 44, and 50 are independent claims. Further, claims 57, 59, and 60 have been canceled with Claims 1-36, 41-42, 48, and 54-55 being previously canceled.
Accordingly, Claims 37-40, 43-47, 49-53, 56, 58, and 61 have been examined and are pending.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s remarks, see pg. 7, filed 07/20/2026, with respect to the rejections 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 57, 59, and 60 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 Therefore, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn.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 Cao et al. US 2025/0119548 A1 (with reference to Provisional application No. 63/217,158), in view of Jun et al. US 2020/0366900 A1, hereinafter referred to as Cao and Jun, respectively (see PTO 892). As such, the current Office Action is submitted as a Non-Final. Please refer to the details below.
2. After careful consideration, the examiner respectfully submits that prior art Cao and Jun reasonably teach and/or suggest, either alone or in combination, all of the disclosed features of claims 37, 44, and 50, given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). For example, Cao’s coding techniques allow for deriving a plurality of intra prediction modes in a most probable mode (MPM) list (abstract). Moreover, Cao describes an MPM list as having two parts comprising primary MPMs and secondary MPMs, which, in turn, can be sorted (e.g. 0074 and 0101), i.e. reordered, based on for example cost. Here primary MPMs and secondary MPMs can be construed as a “first MPM list” and a “second MPM list”, respectively, given the BRI. Cao’s sorting process is understood to be a reordering process which may be based on different criterion such as for e.g. template matching cost (e.g. SAD, SATD, etc.). Please see for e.g. 0093-0099. Also, the relied upon teachings of Cao find corresponding support in the referenced priority document above (see for e.g. 0070 and 0086-0087). As to “code a first set of bits associated with the reordered first MPM list using a first coding method…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”, as recited for e.g. in claim 37, the examiner respectfully submits the work of Jun is deemed relevant. Given the BRI of these features, 0306-0313 of Jun, for example, show information indicating the MPM list (here construed as a first MPM list) and/or the second MPM list, can be coded using at least one of the disclosed entropy coding methods. As such, Jun’s teachings seem to suggest any one of the coding methods shown may be used for each list, where one method can be used for one list while a second method can be used for the other list, i.e. the methods may be different. For these reasons, which are further elaborated on in the office action below, the examiner respectfully submits the work of Cao and Jun, either alone or in combination, reasonably teach and/or suggest the disclosed features of the instant claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 given their BRI.
3. Examiner also finds the work of Racape et al. US 2020/0120336 A1 (PTO 892), hereinafter referred to as Racape, to be relevant, since Racape discloses a method for MPM sorting and signaling in video encoding and decoding (e.g. abstract, 0034, and 0060). Examiner further notes 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, 56, 58, and 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, 44, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. US 2025/0119548 A1 (with reference to Provisional application No. 63/217,158), in view of Jun et al. US 2020/0366900 A1, hereinafter referred to as Cao and Jun, respectively.
Regarding claim 37, Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Cao is found to teach and/or suggest “A device for video decoding See video decoder 300 (fig. 6)], comprising: a processor configured to: generate a most probable mode (MPM) list for a current block [See for e.g. 0074, i.e. decoder 300 may generate a list of MPMs], wherein the MPM list comprises a first MPM list and a second MPM list [See for e.g. 0074 and 0101 of Cao, where the MPM list may include two parts consisting of the primary MPMs (i.e. a first MPM list) and a secondary MPM list]; set a planar mode as a first mode of the first MPM list [See 0099 where the Planar mode may always be placed as the first mode in the MPM list (i.e. the first mode of six primary modes)]; reorder the remaining modes of the first MPM list based on a first reordering process to obtain the reordered first MPM list [0099 also shows the Planar mode can be excluded from the sorting process which is understood to mean the remaining modes of the primary MPMs are reordered. 0093-0098 describes the sorting process which can be construed as “a first reordering process” given its BRI]; code a first set of bits associated with the reordered first MPM list using a first coding method [Please see Jun below for corresponding support]; reorder the second MPM list based on a second reordering process to obtain the reordered second MPM list [Cao shows in 0093, that the sorting process can be applied not only to all intra prediction modes in the MPM list but also to a certain subset of intra prediction modes in said list. A certain subset is taken to mean it can include the secondary MPM list of the MPM list. 0101 also describes the video coder sorting primary MPMs and “secondary MPMs” separately. Please see Jun below for additional support], wherein the second reordering process is different than the first reordering process [Cao (0093-0099) further shows different metrics for computing cost can be employed (e.g. SSE, SAD, SATD, etc.) in the sorting process, which according to 0101, can be applied to primary MPMs and secondary MPMs separately. Although not explicit, Cao’s teachings suggest the use of different metrics when applied to both sets of MPMs. Also please see Jun below for corresponding support]; 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 [Please see Jun below for corresponding support]; and perform prediction for the current block based on the reordered first MPM list and the reordered second MPM list.” [Please see Jun below for corresponding support] Although the teachings of Cao above are deemed relevant, they appear to be silent with respect to coding first and second sets of bits associated with the reordered first and second MPM lists, via first and second coding methods, respectively, where both coding methods are different. On the other hand, the work of Jun from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “code a first set of bits associated with the reordered first MPM list using a first coding method” [See for e.g. 0306-0312, where information indicating the MPM list (e.g. the first list) is coded using at least one of the disclosed entropy coding methods, i.e. any one method may be used for each list. As to rearranged intra prediction modes in the MPM list, see 0518] Regarding “reorder the second MPM list based on a second reordering process to obtain the reordered second MPM list [See for e.g. 0521 where the intra prediction modes in the secondary list may be rearranged via SAD and/or SATD], wherein the second reordering process is different than the first reordering process [Similar to Cao above, 0518 and 0521 of Jun teach/suggest different metrics may be applied to each reordering process. For e.g. SAD may be used for the intra prediction modes in the MPM list, while SATD may be used for the intra prediction modes in the secondary MPM list]; code a second set of bits associated with the reordered second MPM list using a second coding method [As shown above, 0306-0312 shows information indicating the MPM list (e.g. the second list) is coded using at least one of the disclosed entropy coding methods, i.e. any one method may be used for each list. As to rearranged intra prediction modes in the secondary MPM list, see 0521], wherein the second coding method is different than the first coding method [Given at least one of the disclosed entropy coding methods may be applied for both lists (e.g. 0306-0312), this suggests one method can be used for the first list while another method can be used for the secondary list]; and perform prediction for the current block based on the reordered first MPM list and the reordered second MPM list.” [Re-arranged intra prediction modes in both the MPM and secondary MPM lists (see above) may be used for predicting the current block during coding (e.g. figs. 1 and 2)] In light of Jun’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 Cao for deriving a plurality of intra prediction modes in a most probable mode (MPM) list (abstract), to add the teachings of Jun for providing high-efficiency techniques for encoding/decoding an image via intra prediction required for higher-resolution and higher-quality images (e.g. ¶0002).
Regarding claim 44, claim 44 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 37.
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, 5, and 6 of Cao for support.
Claims 38-40, 45-47, and 51-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao, in further view of Jun, and in further view of Jhu et al. US 2024/0283924 A1 (with reference to Provisional Application No. 63/275,438), hereinafter referred to as Jhu.
Regarding claim 38, Cao and Jun teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 37, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Although Cao employs both TIMD and DIMD for performing intra prediction (e.g. fig. 5), both Cao and Jun do not clearly address the features of claim 38. As such, the work of 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 for e.g. ¶0225-¶0230 and 0233 with respect to MPM list and non-MPM list re-ordering based on TIMD/DIMD information. Contrary to Jhu’s first MPM list, the second list is identified as the non-MPM list (figs. 13-15), which can also be reordered. Since both lists are mode lists, Jhu’s teachings are deemed relevant.] In light of Jhu’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 Cao and Jun to add the teachings of Jhu for simplifying the intra prediction modes signaling and improving prediction efficiency (e.g. ¶0002 and ¶0114).
Regarding claim 39, Cao, Jun and Jhu teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 38, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Since both Cao and Jun do 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 the template-based reordering process is a template-based intra mode derivation (TIMD) reordering process [See for e.g. 0093-0099 which show a template based sorting process. As to said process being a TIMD reordering process, Jhu’s methods include the use of TIMD (e.g. 0005, 0022, and fig. 11)], 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.” [A video coder may apply a sorting process, which includes the use of SATD, to all intra prediction modes in the MPM list or a subset of modes in said list (0022, 0093-0099, and 0101)] Although Cao addresses the aforementioned features (where Jun does not), the work of Jhu from the same or similar field of endeavor is also relied on to further teach/suggest these limitations, i.e. “wherein the template-based reordering process is a template-based intra mode derivation (TIMD) reordering process [See TIMD information for reordering the MPM list in for e.g. ¶0225-¶226 of Jhu], 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.” [In light of the foregoing, please refer to SATD in ¶0110 of Jhu regarding TIMD] The motivation for combining Cao, Jun, and Jhu has been discussed in connection with claim 38, above.
Regarding claim 40, Cao, Jun, and Jhu teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 38, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Cao further teaches and/or suggests “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.” [Although not explicit, Cao (e.g. 0106) shows that derived modes via DIMD may be added to the “secondary” MPM list. Since DIMD is derived using a HoG (0071), it is believed Cao’s teachings address the foregoing features. For more explicit support, please see Jhu below]
Although Cao’s teachings appear to address the limitations above, the work of Jhu from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on for more explicit support. [See for e.g. ¶0231 regarding using DIMD and the HoG for intra prediction modes in the non-MPM list which can subsequently be reordered] The motivation for combining Cao, Jun, and Jhu has been discussed in connection with claim 38, above.
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 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, 56, 58, and 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. In particular, the art of record (notably Cao, Jun and Jhu) do not reasonably address the use of “bypass coding” as claimed 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:
43. The device of claim 37, wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a first portion of the 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 the second set of bits associated with prediction modes in the reordered second MPM list using bypass coding.
58. (New) The device of claim 37, wherein the first coding method is a syntax-based coding method and the second coding method is a bypass coding method.
61. (New) The device of claim 50, wherein the first coding method is a syntax-based coding method and the second coding method is a bypass coding method.
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