DETAILED ACTION
1. The Office Action is in response to Application 19108739 filed on 03/05/2025. Claims 1-19, 21 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/05/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. 19108739 filed on 03/05/2025.
Priority # Filling Data Country
KR10-2022-0112569 09/06/2022 KR
KR10-2023-0102921 08/07/2023 KR
Claim Objection
5. Claim 19 recites limitation of: “the shape” in “wherein the processor is configured to determine the candidates based on the shape of the current block when generating the candidate”.
Please changed it to: “wherein the processor is configured to determine the candidates based on shape of the current block when generating the candidate motion criterion”. Appropriated action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by LEE et al. ( US 20200244956).
Claim 21’s recitation of “computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a bitstream, wherein the bitstream is decoded by a decoding method …” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream 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 modes, coding block, flags and values 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 “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 2 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Lee recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (fig. 1 and fig. 2, the bitstream from fig. 1 is stored in fig. 2, 210; paragraph 0002, .. a method and apparatus for encoding/decoding an image and a recording medium storing a bitstream).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
9. Claim 2 and its dependent claims 3-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For claim 2, it recites limitations of “the division shape” in “wherein the processor is configured to generate candidates for each combination of the division shape and an intra prediction directional mode when generating a candidate list including candidates of intra prediction directional mode information used for prediction of at least one area predicted through the intra prediction”; However, there is no antecedence basis for this limitation.
it recites limitations of “candidates” in “wherein the processor is configured to generate candidates for each combination of the division shape and an intra prediction directional mode when generating a candidate list including candidates of intra prediction directional mode information used for prediction of at least one area predicted through the intra prediction
”; However, it is not clear what is the candidates for? Are the candidates for “each combination of the division shape and an intra prediction directional mode”? How could the candidates for both combination of the division shape and for intra prediction directional mode? Or the candidates for intra prediction directional mode information used for prediction of at least one area predicted through the intra prediction? Or for something else?
Thus the scope of the claim and its dependent claim 3-9 are unclear.
10. Claim 12 and its dependent claims 13-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention for the similar reason as for claim 2 and its dependent claims 3-9.
11. Claim 19 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For claim 19, it recites limitations of “the candidates” and “the candidate list “ in “wherein the processor is configured to determine the candidates based on the shape of the current block when generating the candidate list”; However, there is no antecedence basis for these two limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. 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.
13. Claims 1-2, 10-12, 19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by BAE (GB 2591563).
Regarding claim 1, BAE teaches an decoding device for decoding a video signal (fig. 2) comprising a processor (fig. 2, component 210), wherein the processor is configured to:
divide a current block into multiple areas (as shown in fig. 3/fig. 4/fig. 5/fig. 6/fig. 7) according to a reference line (the reference lines shown in fig. 14; also in fig. 30; from fig. 30, first sub-block/second sub-block is divided according to reference line);
and perform prediction for each divided area (as shown in fig. 30), and wherein at least one of the multiple areas is predicted through intra prediction (as shown in fig. 30; paragraph [00467] After dividing the non-square coding block into a plurality of sub-blocks, a non-wide angle intra prediction mode may be applied to the first sub-block, and a wide angle intra prediction mode may be applied to the second sub-block).
Regarding claim 11, BAE teaches an encoding device for decoding a video signal (fig. 1) comprising a processor (fig. 1, component 165), wherein the processor is configured to:
divide a current block into multiple areas (as shown in fig. 3/fig. 4/fig. 5/fig. 6/fig. 7) according to a reference line (the reference lines shown in fig. 14; also in fig. 30; from fig. 30, first sub-block/second sub-block is divided according to reference line);
and perform prediction for each divided area (as shown in fig. 30), and wherein at least one of the multiple areas is predicted through intra prediction (as shown in fig. 30; paragraph [00467] After dividing the non-square coding block into a plurality of sub-blocks, a non-wide angle intra prediction mode may be applied to the first sub-block, and a wide angle intra prediction mode may be applied to the second sub-block).
Regarding claim 21, BAE teaches a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a bitstream (fig. 2, component 245), wherein the bitstream is decoded by a decoding method (fig. 2) wherein the decoding method comprising:
divide a current block into multiple areas (as shown in fig. 3/fig. 4/fig. 5/fig. 6/fig. 7) according to a reference line (the reference lines shown in fig. 14; also in fig. 30; from fig. 30, first sub-block/second sub-block is divided according to reference line);
and perform prediction for each divided area (as shown in fig. 30), and wherein at least one of the multiple areas is predicted through intra prediction (as shown in fig. 30; paragraph [00467] After dividing the non-square coding block into a plurality of sub-blocks, a non-wide angle intra prediction mode may be applied to the first sub-block, and a wide angle intra prediction mode may be applied to the second sub-block).
Regarding claim 2, BAE teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, BAE further discloses that generate candidates for each combination of the division shape (fig. 3, paragraph 0114, …. or the prediction partitioning of a coding block, any of partition modes (Part mode) showing a partitioning shape of a coding block may be specified. Information for determining a partition index showing any of partition mode candidates may be signaled in a bitstream) and an intra prediction directional mode (fig. 28) when generating a candidate list including candidates of intra prediction directional mode information used for prediction of at least one area predicted through the intra prediction (paragraph 0230-0231, …The number of MPM (Most Probable Mode) candidates included in a candidate list may be 3, 4, 5, 6 or more…An intra prediction mode of a neighboring block, a directional intra prediction mode similar to a neighboring block, or a default mode may be set as the MPM candidate).
Regarding claim 10, BAE teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, BAE further discloses that if the multiple areas include an area to be predicted through inter prediction (as shown in fig. 2, inter prediction module 230), the processor is configured not to compensate a motion vector of the area to be predicted through the inter prediction (paragraph 0101, In order to perform inter prediction, it may be determined for the coding unit which of a skip mode, a merge mode, an AMVP mode, and an inter block copy mode is used as the motion prediction method of the prediction unit included in the coding unit; in which, it does not compensate a motion vector of the area to be predicted through the inter prediction, for example, in inter block copy mode).
Regarding claim 12, BAE teaches the limitations recited in claim 11 as discussed above. In addition, BAE further discloses that generate candidates for each combination of the division shape (fig. 3, paragraph 0114, …. or the prediction partitioning of a coding block, any of partition modes (Part mode) showing a partitioning shape of a coding block may be specified. Information for determining a partition index showing any of partition mode candidates may be signaled in a bitstream) and an intra prediction directional mode (fig. 28) when generating a candidate list including candidates of intra prediction directional mode information used for prediction of at least one area predicted through the intra prediction (paragraph 0230-0231, …The number of MPM (Most Probable Mode) candidates included in a candidate list may be 3, 4, 5, 6 or more…An intra prediction mode of a neighboring block, a directional intra prediction mode similar to a neighboring block, or a default mode may be set as the MPM candidate).
Regarding claim 19, BAE teaches the limitations recited in claim 11 as discussed above. In addition, BAE further discloses that wherein the processor is configured to determine the candidates based on the shape of the current block when generating the candidate list (as shown in fig. 3, the partition candidate is determined based on the on the shape of the current block when generating the candidate list ; paragraph 0114, …. or the prediction partitioning of a coding block, any of partition modes (Part mode) showing a partitioning shape of a coding block may be specified. Information for determining a partition index showing any of partition mode candidates may be signaled in a bitstream…. The number or type of asymmetric partition mode candidates that a coding block may use may be determined based on at least one of the size or shape of a coding block ).
14. Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
15. Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAIHAN JIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1399. The examiner can normally be reached on flexible.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sath Perungavoor can be reached on (571)272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-0655.
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, see 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 information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZAIHAN JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights