DETAILED ACTION
This communication is being filed in response to the submission having a mailing date of 03/10/2026 in which a (3) month Shortened Statutory Period for Response has been set.
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 .
Acknowledgements
3. Upon new entry, claims (1 -20) remain pending for examination, of which (1, 8, 15) are the three (3) parallel-running independent claims on record, being amended.
Examiner thanks’ Applicant representative (Atty. M. Voog Reg. No, 71,870) for the new list of amendments provided, for the detailed remarks and clarifications, and for the cooperation expediting the case.
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) that was/were submitted on (03/10/2026) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordantly, the IDS has been accepted and considered herein.
Claims (1 -20) remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su; et al. (“Generalized bi-prediction for inter coding”; Su; et al.) in view of US 11,284,069; Liu; et al.
The presented Double Patent (DP) rejection is intended to hold the rejection in abeyance, until allowable subject matter is identified in the Instant application. The rejection is maintained.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) that was/were submitted on (03/10/2026) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordantly, the IDS has been accepted and considered herein.
Response to Applicant’s arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, but they’re not persuasive, for at least the following reasons:
5.1. The Examiner undersigned considers that the previously presented combined prior art (PA) on record, very well discloses the principles of the invention, and all the features as claimed associated with – a codec ecosystem for video-data processing, based on Multi hypothesis prediction mode, including GBi indexation of an implemented GBi mode; … which for the most part, was/were part of the common knowledge at the time of the invention.
5.2. Examiner considers that the no allowable subject matter has been yet identified in the claims. The claims language instead lists a set of well-known feature techniques, comprising inter prediction and filtering applications, commonly used and well documented in the latest and legacy codec standards (HEVC and VVC), way before the invention was filed/made.
5.3. More specifically, Applicant argues a failure to discloses the newly added set of amended features in the claims; [Remarks; page 9]:
5.3.1. Applicant further argues the failure to disclose: [… deriving a value index of the applied prediction type (i.e. uni-prediction and/or bi-prediction); Remarks; page 9)]; Examiner respectfully disagrees, because under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the instant specification and the common knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, at least Su discloses – indexation and binarization of the resultant GBi prediction and selected weights, signaled to the decoder at the CU/PU levels, in order to adaptively adjust the merge candidate list; as described in sections (1 -2), Tables (1-2).
Similarly, Liu discloses – a codec implementation of the same, using a simplified “GBi data prediction” and indexation techniques (e.g. section (2.2.12.)); in accordance with the HEVC/VVC standard; [Liu; 4: 55]; and Figs. 28-29; [Cols; 39 -40].
5.3.2. Applicant argues a failure to disclose […setting a value of the bi-prediction index used to generate the pairwise merge candidate based on the type of merge candidates (e.g., bi-directional or uni-directional); (Remarks; page 8)]; Examiner also disagreed, because under the same BRI doctrine at least Su teaches - setting a binary value for each weight prediction, as shown in Tables (1-2), that will be signaled to the codec process (merge mode): [Su; pages 1-2].
Similarly, Liu discloses – setting a value of the bi-prediction index used to generate the pairwise merge candidate based on the type of merge candidates; as described in the prediction syntax structure of Tables (2 -4); [24: 55 -25: 20].
Regarding the rationale and motivation of the new amended features, please refer to the Rejection section (6) below.
Finally, the Office considers Applicant's arguments not persuasive, as applied rejection on record as a whole reads on the claimed construction, establishing the "Prima Facie" case of equivalent disclosures, on the basis of a person of ordinary skills in the art would have recognized the similar elements shown, or the same structural similarities shown, wherein such structure/methodology performs the same identical functions in substantially the same way, able to produce the same identical results.
_ See [MPEP – 2183]. Making a Prima Facie Case of Equivalence).
_ See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1568]; …also when similar structure applies;
_ See Kemco Sales, Inc. vs. Control Papers., 208 F.3d 1352, 54 USPQ2d 1308] …when identical functionality is specified in the claim, in substantially the same way.
Claim rejection section
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 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.
6.1. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ
459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
6.2. Claims (1 -20) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su; et al. (“Generalized bi-prediction for inter coding”; hereafter “Su”) in view of Liu; et al (US 11,284,069 B2; hereafter “Liu”).
Claim 1. (Currently Amended) Su discloses the “Generalized bi-prediction” for inter coding, employing “bi-directional mode”, substantially as claimed - A device for decoding picture information, comprising: a processor (i.e. an implicit processing unit running the coding algorithm) configured to: (e.g. a generalized bi-prediction (GBi) mode that allows applying different weights to lists (L0 and L1); [Su; page 1-2]);
derive a value of a bi-prediction index based on a determination of whether at least one of a first merge candidate or a second merge candidate (e.g. see L0 and L1 value candidates; [page 2]) is a bi-directional candidate or a uni- directional candidate (e.g. prediction with different weights; accordantly signaled as shown in Tables (1, 2); [page 1]) used to generate a pairwise merge candidate; (e.g. see bi-predicted values assigned for each index, as shown in Tables (1 -2); [Su; page 2]);
generate a pairwise merge candidate using the value of the bi-prediction index; and (e.g. see values pairwise values from L0/L1 and an index assigned to them, as shown in Tables (1 -2); [Su; page 2]);
set a value of the bi-prediction index associated with the pairwise merge candidate; (e.g. see Tables (1 -2); [Su; pages 1-2]);
and decode at least a portion of the picture information based on the value of the bi-prediction index; (e.g. see decoder process, where GBi is applied; [Su; pages 1 -2]);
Given the teachings of Su as a whole, and under the obvious assumption and purpose of this paper, it is noted that some of the functional steps/components as listed (i.e. no encoder/decoder processor architecture disclosed), are missed or not fully described in the papers.
For the purpose of additional clarification, and in the same field of endeavor, a particular inter-prediction technique, Liu discloses – (e.g. see codec implementation of the same, using a “GBi data prediction” and indexation techniques (e.g. section (2.2.12.)); in accordance with the HEVC/VVC codec standard; [Liu; 4: 55]; as illustrated in Figs. 28-29; [Cols; 39 -40].
Liu specifically teaches - a merge list construction (e.g. sections (1.1.3; 2.2.1)) of combined weights from List 0 and List 1 (i.e. pairwise merge candidates in a combined list) as shown in at least the configuration Table of Fig. 7, where the coder selects the best predictor from the merged/combined L0/L1 list, employing uni/bi - prediction techniques, Tables (2 -4); [Liu; Cols. 23-25], by generating & transmit an index flag signaling the nature of the prediction used (i.e. uni and/or bi- prediction) [Liu; section (2.2.11.6.); Cols. 23 -25].
Liu further teaches similar implementation - derive a value of a bi-prediction index based on a determination of whether at least one of a first merge candidate or a second merge candidate is a bi-directional candidate or a uni- directional candidate; (e.g. see merging mode of the same (sections 2.2.13, 2.2.14 and 2.2.15.), using either or both uni-predicted and/or bi-prediction; [Col: 6: 15; 17: 15; Col. 25-26])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Su; et al. with the codec implementation of Liu; et al. in order to provide – coding efficiency and reducing computation complexity during Inter prediction process, employing a combined merge candidate list for best selection efficiency and signaling; [Liu; Summary]).
Claim 2. (Currently Amended) Su/Liu discloses - The device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: determine that one of the first merge candidate or the second merge candidate is a bi-directional candidate; (e.g. see merge mode implementation using prediction selection technique, in at least (section 2.2.1.6; and 2.2.11.6));
determine a value of an index associated with the bi-directional candidate; and based on the determination that one of the first merge candidate or the second merge candidate is the bi-directional candidate, set the value of the bi-prediction index associated with used to generate the pairwise merge candidate to the value of the index associated with the bi-directional candidate; (e.g. see merging mode of the same (sections 2.2.13, 2.2.14 and 2.2.15.), using either or both uni-predicted and/or bi-prediction; [Col: 6: 15; 17: 15; Col. 25-26]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 3. (Currently Amended) Su/Liu discloses - The device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
determine that the first merge candidate and the second merge candidate are uni-directional candidates; (e.g. see similar candidate selection in [Liu; section (2.2.11.6.); Cols. 23 -25]);
generate a combined bi-directional merge candidate based on the first merge candidate and the second merge candidate; (e.g. see similar candidate selection in [Liu; section (2.2.11.6.); Cols. 23 -25]);
assign a value of a default index to the combined bi-directional merge candidate; and based on the determination that the first merge candidate and the second merge candidate are uni- directional candidates, set the value of the bi-prediction index associated with used to generate the pairwise merge candidate to the value of the default index; (e.g. merging mode of the same (sections 2.2.13, 2.2.14 and 2.2.15.), using either or both uni-predicted and/or bi-prediction; [Col: 6: 15; 17: 15; Col. 25-26]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 4. (Currently Amended) Su/Liu discloses - The device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
determine that the first merge candidate and the second merge candidate are bi-directional candidates; (e.g. see merge mode is implemented; section (2.2.11.6); [Liu]);
determine a first bi-prediction weight associated with the first merge candidate and a second bi- prediction weight associated with the second merge candidate; (e.g. prediction weights of the same; (section (2.2.11 -2.2.15)); [Liu]);
calculate an average value of the first bi-prediction weight and the second bi-prediction weight; (e.g. see GBi prediction, including pairwise average candidate in sections (2.2.2 and 2.2.12); [Liu; 10: 30; Col. 24]) and based on the determination that the first merge candidate and the second merge candidate are bi- directional candidates, set the value of the bi-prediction index associated with used (e.g. see merging mode of the same (sections 2.2.13, 2.2.14 and 2.2.15.), using either or both uni-predicted and/or bi-prediction; [Col: 6: 15; 17: 15; Col. 25-26]; the same motivation applies herein.)
to generate the pairwise merge candidate to the average value of the first bi-prediction weight and the second bi-prediction weight; (e.g. pairwise average candidate in sections (2.2.2 and 2.2.12); [Liu; 10: 30; Col. 24]); including weight factor specified in the syntax; [Col. 25]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 5. (Currently Amended) Su/Liu discloses - The device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine a value of a first interpolation filter index associated with the first merge candidate and a value of a second interpolation filter index associated with the second merge candidate; (e.g. see interpolation filtering of the same in [Su; slide 5] and [Liu; 2.2.11; 23: 15]);
set a value of an interpolation filter index associated with the pairwise merge candidate to the value of the first interpolation filter index or to the value of the second interpolation filter index; (e.g. see interpolation filter index associated with the pairwise merge candidate in at least [Liu; 26: 28]);
and decode at least the portion of the picture information further based on the value of the interpolation filter index; (e.g. see decoder implementation of the same as illustrated in Figs. 28-29; [Cols; 39 -40]; employing interpolation filtering techniques, [Liu; 2.2.11; 23: 15], in accordance with the HEVC/VVC codec standard; [Liu; 4: 55]; the same motivation applies herein).
Claim 6. (Original) Su/Liu discloses - The device of claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine that one of the value of the first interpolation filter index or the value of the second interpolation filter index is a non-default interpolation filter index value and that one of the value of the first interpolation filter index or the value of the second interpolation filter index is a default interpolation filter index value; (e.g. see interpolation filtering of the same in [Su; slide 5] and similar filtering technique in [Liu; 2.2.11.4]);
and set the value of the interpolation filter index associated with the pairwise merge candidate to the non-default interpolation filter index value; (e.g. see interpolation filter index associated with the pairwise merge candidate in at least [Liu; 26: 28]; the same motivation applies herein).
Claim 7. (Original) Su/Liu discloses - The device of claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a maximum value between the value of the first interpolation filter index and the value of the second interpolation filter index; (e.g. see MAX (i.e. >>) during filter interpolation; [Su; slide 5]);
and set the value of the interpolation filter index associated with the pairwise merge candidate to the maximum value; (e.g. see interpolation filter index associated with the pairwise merge candidate in at least [Liu; 26: 28]; same motivation applies herein).
Claim 8. (Currently Amended) Su/Liu discloses A method for decoding picture information, comprising:
deriving a value of a bi-prediction index based on a determination of whether at least one of a first merge candidate or a second merge candidate is a bi-directional candidate or a uni-directional candidate used to generate a pairwise merge candidate;
generating a pairwise merge candidate using the value of the bi-prediction index; and setting a value of the bi-prediction index associated with the pairwise merge candidate;
and decoding at least a portion of the picture information based on the value of the bi-prediction index. (Current lists all the same elements as recite in Claim 1 above, but in “method form” instead, and is/are therefore on the same premise.)
Claim 9. (Currently Amended) Su/Liu discloses - The method of claim 8, further comprising: determining that one of the first merge candidate or the second merge candidate is a bi-directional candidate; determining a value of an index associated with the bi-directional candidate; and based on the determination that one of the first merge candidate or the second merge candidate is the bi-directional candidate, setting the value of the bi-prediction index used to generate the pairwise merge candidate to the value of the index associated with the bi-directional candidate. The same rationale and motivation apply as given to claim 2 above.)
Claim 10. (Currently Amended) Su/Liu discloses - The method of claim 8, further comprising: determining that the first merge candidate and the second merge candidate are uni-directional candidates; generating a combined bi-directional merge candidate based on the first merge candidate and the second merge candidate; assigning a value of a default index to the combined bi-directional merge candidate; and based on the determination that the first merge candidate and the second merge candidate are uni- directional candidates, setting the value of the bi-prediction index used to generate the pairwise merge candidate to the value of the default index. The same rationale and motivation apply as given to claim 3 above.)
Claim 11. (Currently Amended) Su/Liu discloses - The method of claim 8, further comprising: determining that the first merge candidate and the second merge candidate are bi-directional candidates; determining a first bi-prediction weight associated with the first merge candidate and a second bi- prediction weight associated with the second merge candidate; calculating an average value of the first bi-prediction weight and the second bi-prediction weight; and based on the determination that the first merge candidate and the second merge candidate are bi- directional candidates, setting the value of the bi-prediction index used to generate the pairwise merge candidate to the average value of the first bi-prediction weight and the second bi-prediction weight. (The same rationale and motivation apply as given to claim 4 above.)
Claim 12. (Currently Amended) Su/Liu discloses - The method of claim 8, further comprising: determining a value of a first interpolation filter index associated with the first merge candidate and a value of a second interpolation filter index associated with the second merge candidate; setting a value of an interpolation filter index associated with the pairwise merge candidate to the value of the first interpolation filter index or to the value of the second interpolation filter index; and decoding at least the portion of the picture information further based on the value of the interpolation filter index. (The same rationale and motivation apply as given to claim 5 above.)
Claim 13. (Original) Su/Liu discloses - The method of claim 12, further comprising: determining that one of the value of the first interpolation filter index or the value of the second interpolation filter index is a non-default interpolation filter index value and that one of the value of the first interpolation filter index or the value of the second interpolation filter index is a default interpolation filter index value; and setting the value of the interpolation filter index associated with the pairwise merge candidate to the non-default interpolation filter index value. (The same rationale and motivation apply as given to claim 6 above.)
Claim 14. (Original) Su/Liu discloses - The method of claim 12, further comprising: determining a maximum value between the value of the first interpolation filter index and the value of the second interpolation filter index; and setting the value of the interpolation filter index associated with the pairwise merge candidate to the maximum value. (The same rationale and motivation apply as given to claim 7 above.)
Claim 15. (Currently Amended) Su/Liu discloses - A device for encoding picture information, comprising: a processor configured to: derive a value of a bi-prediction index based on a determination of whether at least one of a first merge candidate or a second merge candidate is a bi-directional candidate or a uni- directional candidate used to generate a pairwise merge candidate; generate a pairwise merge candidate using the value of the bi-prediction index; and set a value of the bi-prediction index associated with the pairwise merge candidate; and encode at least a portion of the picture information based on the value of the bi-prediction index. (Current lists all the same elements as recite in Claim 1 above, but in “Device form” instead, and is therefore on the same premise.)
Claim 16. (Currently Amended) Su/Liu discloses - The device of claim 15, wherein the processor is configured to: determine that one of the first merge candidate or the second merge candidate is a bi-directional candidate; determine a value of an index associated with the bi-directional candidate; and based on the determination that one of the first merge candidate or the second merge candidate is the bi-directional candidate, set the value of the bi-prediction index associated with used to generate the pairwise merge candidate to the value of the index associated with the bi-directional candidate. (The same rationale and motivation apply as given to claim 2 above.)
Claim 17. (Currently Amended) Su/Liu discloses - The device of claim 15, wherein the processor is configured to: determine that the first merge candidate and the second merge candidate are bi-directional candidates; determine a first bi-prediction weight associated with the first merge candidate and a second bi- prediction weight associated with the second merge candidate; calculate an average value of the first bi-prediction weight and the second bi-prediction weight; and based on the determination that the first merge candidate and the second merge candidate are bi- directional candidates, set the value of the bi-prediction index associated with used to generate the pairwise merge candidate to the average value of the first bi-prediction weight and the second bi-prediction weight. (The same rationale and motivation apply as given to claim 4 above.)
Claim 18. (Currently Amended) Su/Liu discloses - The device of claim 15, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a value of a first interpolation filter index associated with the first merge candidate and a value of a second interpolation filter index associated with the second merge candidate; set a value of an interpolation filter index associated with the pairwise merge candidate to the value of the first interpolation filter index or to the value of the second interpolation filter index; and encode at least the portion of the picture information further based on the value of the interpolation filter index. (The same rationale and motivation apply as given to claim 5 above.)
Claim 19. (Original) Su/Liu discloses - The device of claim 18, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine that one of the value of the first interpolation filter index or the value of the second interpolation filter index is a non-default interpolation filter index value and that one of the value of the first interpolation filter index or the value of the second interpolation filter index is a default interpolation filter index value; and set the value of the interpolation filter index associated with the pairwise merge candidate to the non-default interpolation filter index value. (The same rationale and motivation apply as given to claim 6 above.)
Claim 20. (Original) The device of claim 18, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a maximum value between the value of the first interpolation filter index and the value of the second interpolation filter index; and set the value of the interpolation filter index associated with the pairwise merge candidate to the maximum value. (The same rationale and motivation apply as given to claim 7 above.)
Prior Art Citations
8. The following List of prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is/are considered
pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
8.1. Patent documentation
US 11,284,069 B2 Liu; Hongbin et al. H04N19/147; H04N19/80; H04N19/105;
US 11,134,268 B2 Liu; Hongbin et al. H04N19/105; H04N19/44; H04N19/13;
US 11,470,348 B2 Su; Yu-Chi et al. H04N19/105; H04N19/52; H04N19/176;
US 11,876,957 B2 Jang; et al. H04N19/577; H04N19/52; H04N19/105;
US 11,394,989 B2 Li; Guichun et al. H04N19/105; H04N19/96; H04N19/577;
US 11,496,743 B2 Park; Naeri et al. H04N19/176; H04N19/159; H04N19/105;
US 12,375,690 B2 Zhang; Li et al. H04N19/46; H04N19/109; H04N19/51;
US 12,108,087 B2 Bordes; et al. H04N19/577; H04N19/523; H04N19/517;
US 20220060688 A1 Galpin; et al. H04N19/463; H04N19/70; H04N19/139;
8.2. Non-Patent documentation:
_ Generalized Bi-prediction Method for future video coding; Chen 2016
_ Generalized bi-prediction for inter coding; Su - July 2018
_ Non-temporal illumination compensation; Tamse - 2018
_ Weighted prediction vs. Generalized Bi-prediction with fade sequences; Bordes; Oct-2018
CONCLUSIONS
9. In view of above Examiner’s considerations, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1 .I 36(a). See also See MPEP 5 706.07(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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS PEREZ-FUENTES (luis.perez-fuentes@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 270 -1168. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, WILLIAM VAUGHN can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272 -3922. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated system, please call (800) 786 -9199 (USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272 -1000.
/LUIS PEREZ-FUENTES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481.