DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species I in the reply filed on 07/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 19 objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claims 12 and 19, which recites the limitation, “… determining, if the first rate-distortion parameter is greater than or equal to the second rate-distortion..” and “ … determining, if the first rate-distortion parameter is less than the second rate-distortion …” should be amended to positively recite “… determining, when the first rate-distortion parameter is greater than or equal to the second rate-distortion …” and “… determining, when the first rate-distortion parameter is less than the second rate-distortion parameter …” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 13 and 20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 20 recites the limitation, “… cropping, based om the hierarchical sub-coding unit, a full reference frame set …” and “… the hierarchical sub-coding unit satisfies a motion similarity condition”.. and further “… the candidate reference frame set being configured for obtaining a target reference frame for coding the target unit through traversal”. It is unclear what is considered a full reference frame set. Is the full reference set the same a reference frame set? Further, it is unclear what the motion similarity constitutes what is considered the traversal or how the traversal relates to obtaining the claimed target reference frame.
Claims 2-12 and 14-19 are rejected based on claim dependency.
Regarding claim 3, which recites the following limitation, “… the target division sub-coding unit satisfies a unit division condition; …” It is unclear what is considered a unit division condition, is the unit division condition determining to divide unit?
Claims 4-5 are rejected based upon claim dependency.
Regarding claim 6 and 15, which recites the limitation, “… the M division sub-coding unit comprise an auxiliary division sub-coding unit..” it is unclear what is to be considered as the “auxiliary division sub-coding unit”.
Regarding claim 7 and 16, which recites the limitation, “…the full reference frame set comprising a forward full reference frame set and a backward reference frame set…” It is unclear what is considered as a forward full reference frame set or a backward full reference frame set. Is the full reference frame set different from a reference frame set?
Claim 8 is rejected based upon claim dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0327476 A1), “Video Signal Processing Method and Device”
Gosquet et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0100186 A1), “Method and Apparatus for Vector Encoding In Video Coding and Decoding”
Rosewarne et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0345718 A1), “Method, Apparatus and System for Encoding And Decoding A Block of Video Samples”
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1821. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 P.M..
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.
JESSICA PRINCE
Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/JESSICA M PRINCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights