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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement’s (IDS) were submitted on 08/04/2025 & 08/15/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 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. Independent claims 1, 9 and 17 recite “determining a unit category of the current PU according to the PU distribution information”. The claims further narrow “the PU distribution information” to represent a partitioning method (i.e. how the PUs are partitioned) and distribution of neighboring PUs of the current PU (i.e. where the PUs are located/distributed). It appears based on the specification, a unit category of the current PU is determined according to neighboring PU intra modes {For example, applicant’s Fig. 6}. It is unclear if “PU distribution information” covers “neighboring intra PU modes”.
Claims 3, 11 and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 3, 11 and 19 recite “determining that the unit category of the current PU is a first category in response to that it is determined, according to the encoding information of each neighborhood PU, that an intra-frame prediction mode of the corresponding neighborhood PU is DC or planar”. However, from the specification, all neighborhood PUs must be DC or planar. It is unclear if this is contained within the above limitation.
Claims 4, 12 and 19 recite the term “a third category” in regards to “determining that the unit category of the current PU is a third category”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Specifically, independent claims 1, 9 and 17 do not introduce “a first category” and “a second category”. Furthermore, dependent claims 3 and 11 do introduce “a first category” and “a second category” but claims 4, 12 and 19 do not depend from these claims. Therefore, claims 4, 12 and 19 lack proper antecedent basis and are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant is required to amend the claims to provide clear antecedent basis for “a third category”.
Claims 5, 13 and 20 recite the term “the third category” in regards to “determining that the unit category of the current PU is the third category”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Specifically, independent claims 1, 9 and 17 do not introduce “a third category”. Therefore, it is unclear what “the third category” is referring to. Therefore, claims 5, 13 and 20 lack proper antecedent basis and are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant is required to amend the claims to provide clear antecedent basis for “the third category”.
Claims 6 and 14 recite the term “the first category” in regards to “wherein the unit category of the current PU is the first category”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Specifically, independent claims 1, 9 and 17 do not introduce “a first category”. Therefore, it is unclear what “the first category” is referring to. Therefore, claims 6 and 14 lack proper antecedent basis and are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant is required to amend the claims to provide clear antecedent basis for “the first category”.
Claims 7 and 15 recite the term “the second category” in regards to “wherein the unit category of the current PU is the second category”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Specifically, independent claims 1, 9 and 17 do not introduce “a second category”. Therefore, it is unclear what “the second category” is referring to. Therefore, claims 7 and 15 lack proper antecedent basis and are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant is required to amend the claims to provide clear antecedent basis for “the second category”.
Claims 8 and 16 recite the term “the third category” in regards to “wherein the unit category of the current PU is the third category”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Specifically, independent claims 1, 9 and 17 do not introduce “a third category”. Therefore, it is unclear what “the third category” is referring to. Therefore, claims 7 and 15 lack proper antecedent basis and are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant is required to amend the claims to provide clear antecedent basis for “the third category”.
Claims 7-8 and 15-16 recites the terms “second prediction mode”, “third prediction mode” and “fourth prediction mode”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Specifically, independent claims 1 and 9 do not introduce “a first prediction mode”. Furthermore, dependent claims 6 and 14 do introduce “first prediction mode” but claims 7-8 and/or 15-16 do not depend from these claims. Therefore, claims 7-8 and 15-16 lack proper antecedent basis and are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant is required to amend the claims to provide clear antecedent basis for “second prediction mode”, “third prediction mode” and “fourth prediction mode”.
Claims 9-16 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. Independent claim 9 recites “the processor being configured to perform, when invoking the computer program” is unclear. The definition of “invoking” is “to petition for help or support” or “appeal to or cite as authority”. Please correct the language as the processor executes the computer program.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cao et al. (herein after will be referred to as Cao) (US 20250119548).
Regarding claim 1, Cao discloses a video encoding method performed by an electronic device and comprising:
determining prediction unit (PU) distribution information of an image block in which a current PU is located, wherein the PU distribution information of the image block represents a partitioning method and distribution of neighboring PUs of the current PU in the image block; [See Cao [Fig. 2B] CTU includes CUs. Also, see 0043, CUs include PUs. Also, see 0042, an encoded video bitstream includes syntax elements representative of coding modes and partitioning. Also, see 0053-0054.]
determining a unit category of the current PU according to the PU distribution information of the image block; [See Cao [0074] Generate a MPM list for each PU. MPM list comprises intra modes of neighboring PUs.]
determining an intra-frame prediction mode of the current PU according to the unit category of the current PU; and [See Cao [0074] Actual chosen intra mode (i.e. from MPM list).]
encoding the image block using the current PU according to the determined intra-frame prediction mode. [See Cao [Fig. 5] Video encoder with intra prediction.]
Regarding claim 9, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 17, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 17.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jang (US 20260197436).
Regarding claim 1, Cao discloses a video encoding method performed by an electronic device and comprising:
determining prediction unit (PU) distribution information of an image block in which a current PU is located, wherein the PU distribution information of the image block represents a partitioning method and distribution of neighboring PUs of the current PU in the image block; [See Jang [0055] Partitioning coding units into prediction units. Also, see 0056, the unit is used interchangeably with terms such as block. Also, see 0101, intra-picture partitioning related information.]
determining a unit category of the current PU according to the PU distribution information of the image block; [See Jang [0196] Candidate modes are derived based on neighboring PU modes and added to the MPM list.]
determining an intra-frame prediction mode of the current PU according to the unit category of the current PU; and [See Jang [Fig. 21] Candidate modes in MPM list are used to derive intra mode for current block.]
encoding the image block using the current PU according to the determined intra-frame prediction mode. [See Jang [Fig. 2] Video encoder with Intra prediction.]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (US 20250119548) in view of Piao et al. (herein after will be referred to as Piao) (US 20160295237).
Regarding claim 2, Cao discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Cao does not explicitly disclose
wherein the determining a unit category of the current PU according to the PU distribution information of the image block comprises: determining the unit category of the current PU according to encoding information of each neighborhood PU in response to that it is determined, according to the PU distribution information of the image block, that a neighborhood PU exists at each preset relative position with respect to the current PU in the image block.
However, Piao does disclose
wherein the determining a unit category of the current PU according to the PU distribution information of the image block comprises: determining the unit category of the current PU according to encoding information of each neighborhood PU in response to that it is determined, according to the PU distribution information of the image block, that a neighborhood PU exists at each preset relative position with respect to the current PU in the image block. [See Piao [0151] Intra prediction modes of neighboring PUs of predetermined positions are referred to. Also, see 0052-0053, determines a reference intra prediction mode based on availability and order/location of adjacent block.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Cao to add the teachings of Piao, in order to improve upon the efficiency of coding intra-prediction mode [See Piao [0160]].
Regarding claim 10, see examiners rejection for claim 2 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 18, see examiners rejection for claim 2 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 18.
Claims 2, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 20260197436) in view of Piao et al. (herein after will be referred to as Piao) (US 20160295237).
Regarding claim 2, Jang discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Jang does not explicitly disclose
wherein the determining a unit category of the current PU according to the PU distribution information of the image block comprises: determining the unit category of the current PU according to encoding information of each neighborhood PU in response to that it is determined, according to the PU distribution information of the image block, that a neighborhood PU exists at each preset relative position with respect to the current PU in the image block.
However, Piao does disclose
wherein the determining a unit category of the current PU according to the PU distribution information of the image block comprises: determining the unit category of the current PU according to encoding information of each neighborhood PU in response to that it is determined, according to the PU distribution information of the image block, that a neighborhood PU exists at each preset relative position with respect to the current PU in the image block. [See Piao [0151] Intra prediction modes of neighboring PUs of predetermined positions are referred to. Also, see 0052-0053, determines a reference intra prediction mode based on availability and order/location of adjacent block.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Jang to add the teachings of Piao, in order to improve upon the efficiency of coding intra-prediction mode [See Piao [0160]].
Regarding claim 10, see examiners rejection for claim 2 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 18, see examiners rejection for claim 2 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8, 11-16 and 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xu et al. (US Patent No. 9,288,494) – Col. 12 lines 15-45, Reduce computational complexity by only searching within a limited range. To decide the intra mode of the current block, we test only with the set of modes that are correlated with mode_a. ψ is a function that inputs a mode and outputs a range of modes. The mode mode_p will be used to assist the encoding of the current block.
US 20250203068
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights