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 January 2, 2026.
Claim 1-20 pending in the instant application.
Claims 1, 11 & 20 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/02/2026, page 10-11 with respect to the rejection of claim 1, and similarly claims 11 & 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant asserts that Seregin does not disclose splitting for set selection.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Paragraph [0059] & [0099]-[0100], Seregin discloses of context grouping, wherein MPMs are separated into 3 groups, as 3 intra mode sets, and also grouping depending on block size that are for set selection in decoding the block.
Therefore the rejection of claim 1, and similarly claims 11 & 20 is maintained under 35 USC 103.
Applicant’s remarks filed 01/02/2026, page 10-11, pages ``, with respect to the patentability of claims 2-10 & 12-19 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 combinations outlined below teaches independent claim 1 & 11 as outlined below. Thus, claims 2-10 & 12-19 are also rejected for the similar reasons as outlined below.
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(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seregin et al. (US 2018/0098064 A1) (hereinafter Seregin).
Regarding claim 20, “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a video bitstream,” that is utilized by the method of claim 1… 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). When a claimed, “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a claimed bitstream in claim 7 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Seregin which recites in Paragraph [0027] of encoded data may be accessed from storage device 26 by input interface. Storage device 26 may include any of a variety of distributed or locally accessed data storage media such as a hard drive, Blu-ray discs, DVDs, CD-ROMs, flash memory, volatile or non-volatile memory, or any other suitable digital storage media for storing encoded video data.
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, 11 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seregin et al. (US 2018/0098064 A1) (hereinafter Seregin) in view of Zhao et al. (US 2019/0281289 A1) (hereinafter Zhao), and further in view of Lim et al. (US 2019/0373268 A1) (hereinafter Lim).
Regarding claim 1, Seregin discloses a method for intra prediction mode coding in video decoding [Paragraph [0117], Fig. 7, video decoder implementing techniques in intra prediction unit 84], the method comprising:
receiving, by a device comprising a memory storing instructions and a processor in communication with the memory, a coded video bitstream [Paragraph [0117]-[0118] & [0133]-[0135], Fig. 7, Video decoder receiving encoded video bitstream, using instructions/code executed by processor stored in RAM, ROM, EEPROM, or other disk storage];
constructing, by the device, a list of intra modes for a block in the coded video bitstream from available intra modes according to a first pre-defined rule dependent upon at least a size of the block [Paragraph [0054] & [0059]-[0061], Building MPM list, as list of intra modes, wherein different groupings and number of intra modes within the MPM list is dependent on the size of the block being coded];
splitting, by the device, the ordered list of intra modes into a plurality of intra mode sets for set selection for decoding the block according to a second pre-defined rule dependent upon at least the size of the block [Paragraph [0059] & [0099]-[0100], Context grouping, wherein MPMs are separated into 3 groups, as 3 intra mode sets, and also grouping depending on block size];
extracting, by the device, from the coded video bitstream, a mode index indicating a target intra prediction mode from the intra mode set [Paragraph [0054] & [0130]-[0132], video coder includes in bitstream index value indicates which entry in the MPM list corresponds to actual intra prediction mode, and is decoded by video decoder 30];
determining, by the device, the target intra prediction mode for the block based on the mode index [Paragraph [0054] & [0130]-[0132], video decoder 30 decodes index value to determine the actual intra mode entry in the MPM list that is used]; and
decoding, by the device, the coded video bitstream based on the target intra prediction mode [Paragraph [0050]-[0054] & [0106], video decoder 30 reconstructs pictures based upon determined intra prediction mode].
However, Seregin does not explicitly disclose ordering the list of intra modes into an ordered list of intra modes according to a first pre-defined rule dependent upon at least a size of the block.
Zhao teaches of ordering the list of intra modes into an ordered list of intra modes according to a first pre-defined rule dependent upon at least a size of the block [Paragraph [0110]-[0112], Building MPM list, as list of intra modes, when width of current block is larger than the height of current block, the neighboring modes are added to MPM list in the following order: above->left->above right->above left->left bottom];
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 Seregin to integrate the ability to adjust the number of MPM as described in Zhao as above, as improvement for better flexibility (Zhao, Paragraphs [0013]).
However, Seregin and Zhao do not explicitly disclose extracting, by the device from the coded video bitstream, a set index indicating an intra mode set from the plurality of intra mode sets;
extracting, by the device, from the coded video bitstream, a mode index indicating a target intra prediction mode from the intra mode set;
determining, by the device, the target intra prediction mode for the block based on the set index and the mode index.
Lim teaches of extracting, by the device from the coded video bitstream, a set index indicating an intra mode set from the plurality of intra mode sets [Paragraph [0102]-[0105], decoder parses identifying information including prediction group index number for the intra prediction mode];
extracting, by the device, from the coded video bitstream, a mode index indicating a target intra prediction mode from the intra mode set [Paragraph [0102]-[0105], decoder parses identifying information including group position index for a particular intra prediction mode];
determining, by the device, the target intra prediction mode for the block based on the set index and the mode index [Paragraph [0102]-[0105], decoder identifies particular intra prediction mode using prediction group index number and group position index for a particular intra prediction mode within prediction group index, then references neighboring block corresponding to intra prediction mode].
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 Seregin to integrate the intra prediction mode grouping process as described in Lim as above, for grouping intra prediction modes in such a way is beneficial because neighboring blocks of video data will tend to be predicted according to similar intra prediction modes and provide efficient compression of data (Lim, Paragraphs [0007] & [0105]).
Regarding claim 11, method claim 11 is drawn to an intra prediction mode coding in video encoding method similar and reciprocal to the method for intra prediction mode coding in video decoding of using the same as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, method claim 11 corresponds to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 20, method claim 20 is drawn to method of processing video data similar and to the method for intra prediction mode coding in video encoding of using the same as claimed in claim 11. Therefore, method claim 20 corresponds to method claim 11 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claims 2-3 & 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seregin et al. (US 2018/0098064 A1) (hereinafter Seregin), Zhao et al. (US 2019/0281289 A1) (hereinafter Zhao), and Lim et al. (US 2019/0373268 A1) (hereinafter Lim) in view of Choi et al. (US 2021/0105465 A1) (hereinafter Choi).
Regarding claim 2, Seregin, Zhao, and Lim disclose the method according to claim 1, and analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
However, neither Seregin, Zhao, nor Lim disclose the particulars of claim 2.
Choi teaches wherein, when the size of the block is equal to or greater than a first threshold, the first pre-defined rule specifies that: the ordered list of ordered intra modes comprises a first sub-list being at a top of the list; and the first sub-list comprises all non-directional intra prediction modes [Paragraph [0317], when a size of a block is increased, a probability that a DC mode or a planar mode is to be selected is increased, and thus, for a block with a size equal to or greater than a predetermined size, the planar mode and the DC mode may be set at a higher priority order of a MPM list. For example, the planar mode may be set as MPM[0] that is a top priority order, and the DC mode may be set as MPM[1] that is a second-top priority order].
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 Seregin to integrate the intra prediction mode grouping process as described in Choi as above, for a bit amount required to represent intra prediction mode information of a current block may be decreased (Choi, Paragraphs [0004]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 3, Seregin, Zhao, Lim, and Choi disclose the method according to claim 2, and analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Choi teaches wherein: the first threshold is 8×8; or the first threshold is 32 in a number of samples [Paragraph [0116]-[0119], [0228], [0268]-[0269], [0317], threshold of 8x8].
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 Seregin to integrate the intra prediction mode grouping process as described in Choi as above, for a bit amount required to represent intra prediction mode information of a current block may be decreased (Choi, Paragraphs [0004]-[0005]).
Regarding claims (12-13), method claims (12-13) are drawn to an intra prediction mode coding in video encoding method similar and reciprocal to the method for intra prediction mode coding in video decoding of using the same as claimed in claims (2-3). Therefore, method claims (12-13) corresponds to method claims (2-3), respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claims 4 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seregin et al. (US 2018/0098064 A1) (hereinafter Seregin), Zhao et al. (US 2019/0281289 A1) (hereinafter Zhao), and Lim et al. (US 2019/0373268 A1) (hereinafter Lim) in view of Zhu et al. (US 2021/0250579 A1) (hereinafter Zhu).
Regarding claim 4, Seregin, Zhao, and Lim disclose the method according to claim 1, and analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
However, neither Seregin, Zhao, nor Lim teach or suggest the particulars of claim 4.
Zhu teaches wherein constructing the list of intra modes for the block and ordering the list of intra modes into the ordered list of intra modes is based on an intra mode used by a neighboring block of the block when the size of the block satisfy a predetermined condition [Paragraph [0095]-[0098], The plurality of possible candidate intra prediction modes may be dependent on a size of the current block, and the video encoder may order the three neighboring blocks in the MPM sub-list according to a determined order that is also known by the video decoder].
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 Seregin to integrate the intra prediction mode grouping process as described in Zhu as above, for may be desirable to have larger blocks to efficiently encode the motion vectors for these frame size, e.g. 64×64 pixels. However, because of the corresponding increases in resolution, it also may be desirable to be able to perform motion prediction and transformation on a relatively small scale, e.g. 4×4 pixels (Zhu, Paragraphs [0009]).
Regarding claim 14, method claim 14 is drawn to an intra prediction mode coding in video encoding method similar and reciprocal to the method for intra prediction mode coding in video decoding of using the same as claimed in claim 4. Therefore, method claim 14 corresponds to method claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claims 9-10 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seregin et al. (US 2018/0098064 A1) (hereinafter Seregin), Zhao et al. (US 2019/0281289 A1) (hereinafter Zhao), and Lim et al. (US 2019/0373268 A1) (hereinafter Lim) in view of Choi et al. (US 2021/0105465 A1) (hereinafter Choi) and further in view of Zheng (US 2016/0037185 A1) (hereinafter Zheng).
Regarding claim 9, Seregin, Zhao, and Lim disclose the method according to claim 1, and analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
However, Seregin, Zhao, and Lim do not disclose the particulars of claim 9.
Choi teaches the ordered list of intra modes comprises a first sub-list being at a top of the list; and the first sub-list comprises all non-directional intra prediction modes.
[Paragraph [0317], for a block with a size equal to or greater than a predetermined size, the planar mode and the DC mode may be set at a higher priority order of a MPM list. For example, the planar mode may be set as MPM[0] that is a top priority order, and the DC mode may be set as MPM[1] that is a second-top priority order].
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 Seregin to integrate the intra prediction mode grouping process as described in Choi as above, for a bit amount required to represent intra prediction mode information of a current block may be decreased (Choi, Paragraphs [0004]-[0005]).
However, Choi does not teach wherein, when the size of the block is smaller than a first threshold: the first sub-list comprises all non-directional intra prediction modes.
Zheng teaches wherein, when the size of the block is smaller than a first threshold: the first sub-list comprises all non-directional intra prediction modes [Paragraph [0112], in a case in which the size of the image block is less than or equal to the maximum prediction size, determine that the signaling bits have M bits, and determine, according to the signaling bits, that a mode that is used when the SDC is performed on the image block is the direct current mode or the planar mode, where a value of M is greater than that of N].
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 Seregin to integrate the intra prediction mode grouping process as described in Zheng as above, to improve processing efficiency of reconstruction of an image block (Zheng, Paragraphs [0005]).
Regarding claim 10, Seregin, Zhao, Lim, Choi, and Zheng disclose the method according to claim 9, and analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Choi teaches wherein: the ordered list of intra modes comprises a second sub-list being next to the first sub-list in the list; and the second sub-list comprises default intra prediction modes [Paragraph [0319], angular intra prediction modes as default intra prediction modes may be set in a lower priority order of mpm[2˜5].].
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 Seregin to integrate the intra prediction mode grouping process as described in Choi as above, for a bit amount required to represent intra prediction mode information of a current block may be decreased (Choi, Paragraphs [0004]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 19, method claim 19 is drawn to an intra prediction mode coding in video encoding method similar and reciprocal to the method for intra prediction mode coding in video decoding of using the same as claimed in claim 9. Therefore, method claim 19 corresponds to method claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 & 15-18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The various claimed limitations mentioned in the claims are not taught or suggested by the prior art taken either singly or in combination, with emphasize that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements make them allowable over the prior art of record.
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 DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 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.
/DANIEL CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights