DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This is in response to application no. 19/021,085 filed on 01/14/2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract of the current application is not in a narrative form. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention “VIDEO SIGNAL PROCESSING METHOD AND DEVICE” is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objection
Claim 16 is objected to due to the following reason:
Claim 16 recites “the L0 reference picture index of the average merge candidate is set identical to an L0 reference picture index of the first merge candidate… the L0 reference picture index of the average merge candidate is set identical to an L0 reference picture index of the second merge candidate.” The use of the phrase “is set identical” grammatically incorrect. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “is set to be identical” would resolve the issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the merge candidate list is constructed by inserting the spatial merge candidates and a temporal merge candidate”. The claim fails to specify where “the spatial merge candidates and a temporal merge candidate” are inserted. The term “inserting” implies inserting into something. However, the claim does not specify where the candidates are inserted, thereby renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 15 recites “wherein if a number of merge candidates included in the merge candidate list is less than a first threshold value, an average merge candidate, generated by two of the merge candidates, is newly inserted to the merge candidate list, wherein when a first merge candidate, among the two of the merge candidates, has both L0 and L1 motion information while a second merge candidate, among the two of the merge candidates”. It is unclear which merge candidates are referred by “two of the merge candidates” i.e., “the spatial merge candidates and a temporal merge candidates” or two merge candidates derived among the “spatial merge candidates” as previously recited in the claim, thereby renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 15 fail to explicitly define what “L0” and “L1” refers to. It is unclear whether “L0” and “L1” are: reference picture lists, motion vector, reference picture index etc., thereby renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 15 recites “wherein an L0 reference picture index of the average merge candidate is inherited from one of the first merge candidate and the second merge candidate who has a merge index less than the other of the first merge candidate and the second merge candidate.” The use of the phrase “less than” implies that either the “merge index” itself is a quantity or there is a value associated with it (merge index value). In the limitation it is unclear what is being referred by the “merge index”, thereby renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 16 recites “a merge index of the first merge candidate is less than a merge index of the second merge candidate… wherein when the merge index of the first merge candidate is greater than the merge index of the second merge candidate…”, and is rejected due to a similar reason set forth above with respect to claim 15.
Claim 16 fail to explicitly define what “L0” refers to. It is unclear whether “L0” is: reference picture lists, motion vector, reference picture index etc., thereby renders the claim indefinite.
Independent claims 17 and 18 are rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHNAEL AYNALEM whose telephone number is (571)270-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5:30 PM ET.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/NATHNAEL AYNALEM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488