Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 08/18/2025 and 08/31/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
3. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-10, 12-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han et al. (US 2020/0260105) hereinafter “Han”.
As per claim 1, Han discloses a method for video processing, comprising:
applying, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video (see FIGs. 6-7), a pruning check on a first motion candidate and a second motion candidate for the current video block (paragraph 0116, satisfy the following conditions: the spatial motion vector predictor candidate for block B1 is pruned by the spatial motion vector predictor candidate for block A1 by comparing the spatial motion vector predictor candidate of block B1 with the spatial motion vector predictor candidate of block A1. If the spatial motion vector predictor candidate for block B1 is different from the spatial motion vector predictor candidate for block A1, the spatial motion vector predictor candidate for block B1 is added to the merge/skip list along with the spatial motion vector predictor candidate for block A1. In a similar fashion, the spatial motion vector predictor candidate for block B0 is pruned by the spatial motion vector predictor candidate for block B1, and the spatial motion vector predictor candidate for block A0 is pruned by the spatial motion vector predictor candidate for block A1) based on coding mode information of a first reference block associated with the first motion candidate and coding mode information of a second reference block associated with the second motion candidate (paragraph 0116, the candidates are coded in IBC mode; therefore, their conditions satisfaction is based on their mode); and
performing the conversion based on the applying (paragraphs 0139 and 0171).
As per claim 2, Han discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the pruning check is a similarity check (paragraph 0097, The pruning process compares one candidate against the other candidates in a current candidate list to avoid inserting an identical candidate).
As per claim 4, Han discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the coding mode information of the first reference block comprises intra mode information of the first reference block (i.e., IBC mode, see paragraph 0116), and the coding mode information of the second reference block comprises intra mode information of the second reference block (i.e., IBC mode, see paragraph 0116).
As per claim 5, Han discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the coding mode information of the first reference block comprises screen content coding (SCC) mode information of the first reference block (i.e., IBC mode, see paragraph 0116; paragraph 0121, Various examples of screen content coding (SCC) tools are described below, in particular intra block copy (IBC)), and the coding mode information of the second reference block comprises SCC mode information of the second reference block (i.e., IBC mode, see paragraph 0116; paragraph 0121, Various examples of screen content coding (SCC) tools are described below, in particular intra block copy (IBC)).
As per claim 6, Han discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first reference block is a reference block of the current video block that is indicated by the first motion candidate, or the first reference block is a reference block for a reference block of the current video block, and the reference block of the current video is indicated by the first motion candidate (see FIG. 3A and paragraphs 0086-0087).
As per claim 7, Han discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second reference block is a reference block of the current video block that is indicated by the second motion candidate, or the second reference block is a reference block for a reference block of the current video block, and the reference block of the current video is indicated by the second motion candidate (see FIG. 3A and paragraphs 0086-0087).
As per claim 8, Han discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first reference block is in a reference picture of the current video block, or the first reference block is in a current picture comprising the current video block (see FIG. 3A).
As per claim 9, Han discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second reference block is in a reference picture of the current video block, or the second reference block is in a current picture comprising the current video block (see FIG. 3A).
As per claim 10, this claim recites a conditional limitation, namely "wherein if the coding mode information of the second reference block is different from the coding mode information of the first reference block, the second motion candidate is determined to be different from the first motion candidate." That is, the claim does not require the determination of the second motion candidate to be different from the first motion candidate if the coding mode information of the second reference block is not different from the coding mode information of the first reference block. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim does not require the determination of the second motion candidate to be different from the first motion candidate if the recited predicate condition is not met. See Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat 'l Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed. Appx. 603,607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) ("It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed."); see also Applera Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 12, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (affirming a district court's interpretation of a method claim as including a step that need not be practiced if the condition for practicing the step is not met).
As per claim 12, this claim recites a conditional limitation, namely "wherein if the coding mode information of the second reference block is the same as the coding mode information of the first reference block, the second motion candidate is determined to be the same as the first motion candidate." That is, the claim does not require the determination of the second motion candidate to be the same as the first motion candidate if the coding mode information of the second reference block is not the same as the coding mode information of the first reference block. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim does not require the determination of the second motion candidate to be the same as the first motion candidate if the recited predicate condition is not met. See Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat 'l Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed. Appx. 603,607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) ("It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed."); see also Applera Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 12, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (affirming a district court's interpretation of a method claim as including a step that need not be practiced if the condition for practicing the step is not met).
As per claim 13, Han discloses the method of claim 1, wherein if a similarity between the coding mode information of the second reference block and the coding mode information of the first reference block is larger than a threshold, the second motion candidate is determined to be different from the first motion candidate, or wherein if a similarity between the coding mode information of the second reference block and the coding mode information of the first reference block is smaller than or equal to a threshold, the second motion candidate is determined to be the same as the first motion candidate, or wherein if a similarity between the coding mode information of the second reference block and the coding mode information of the first reference block is smaller than or equal to a threshold, the second motion candidate is not added into the motion candidate list. The claim recites an alternative choice between three limitations, only the first limitation is addressed. The first limitation of this claim recites a conditional limitation, namely "wherein if a similarity between the coding mode information of the second reference block and the coding mode information of the first reference block is larger than a threshold, the second motion candidate is determined to be different from the first motion candidate." That is, the claim does not require the determination of the second motion candidate to be different from the first motion candidate if a similarity between the coding mode information of the second reference block and the coding mode information of the first reference block is not larger than a threshold. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim does not require the determination of the second motion candidate to be different from the first motion candidate if the recited predicate condition is not met. See Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat 'l Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed. Appx. 603,607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) ("It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed."); see also Applera Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 12, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (affirming a district court's interpretation of a method claim as including a step that need not be practiced if the condition for practicing the step is not met).
As per claim 15, Han discloses the method of claim 1, wherein whether to and/or how to apply the method is indicated at one of the following: a sequence level, a group of pictures level, a picture level, a slice level, or a tile group level, or wherein whether to and/or how to apply the method is indicated in one of the following: a sequence header, a picture header, a sequence parameter set (SPS), a video parameter set (VPS), a dependency parameter set (DPS), a decoding capability information (DCI), a picture parameter set (PPS), an adaptation parameter sets (APS), a slice header, or a tile group header, or wherein whether to and/or how to apply the method is indicated at a region containing more than one sample or pixel, or wherein whether to and/or how to apply the method is dependent on coded information (the claim recites an alternative choice between four limitations, only the fourth limitation is addressed, see the abstract).
As per claim 16, Han discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream (see FIG. 6).
As per claim 17, Han discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream (see FIG. 7).
As per claims 18-19, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 1 are applicable for claims 18-19; in addition, Han discloses a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform the claimed method (paragraph 0248).
20. A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for video processing, wherein the method comprises: applying a pruning check on a first motion candidate and a second motion candidate for a current video block of the video based on coding mode information of a first reference block associated with the first motion candidate and coding mode information of a second reference block associated with the second motion candidate; and generating the bitstream based on the applying.
As per claim 20, Han discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for video processing (paragraph 0028, Video encoder 200 may generate a bitstream including encoded video data. Source device 102 may then output the encoded video data via output interface 108 onto computer-readable medium 110), wherein the method comprises (the method steps do not carry patentable weight as the claim is a product-by-process claim in which only the bitstream (product), generated by the method steps (process), is given weight. 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 recording medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples 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 recording medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 20 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional relationship between the stored bitstream and recording medium. Therefor the structure, 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 recording medium storing data and is anticipated by Han which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (¶0028).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
8. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
9. Claim(s) 3, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2020/0260105) in view of DENG et al. (US 2024/0205414) hereinafter “DENG”.
As per claim 3, Han discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first motion candidate is comprised in a motion candidate list for the current video block, the second motion candidate is not comprised in the motion candidate list (paragraph 0097, The pruning process compares one candidate against the other candidates in a current candidate list);
However, Han does not explicitly disclose the coding mode information of the first reference block and the coding mode information of the second reference block are compared in the pruning check.
In the same field of endeavor, DENG discloses the coding mode information of the first reference block and the coding mode information of the second reference block are compared in the pruning check (see claim 129, wherein determining the similarity comprises: checking a difference between motion data of the target merge candidate and motion data of at least one of merge candidates in the geometric partitioning-based merge list, and the motion data comprises at least one of a prediction direction (L0, L1), motion vectors, a POC value, and at least one inter-prediction mode).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Han, with those of DENG, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because indeed both references teach a pruning process for candidate insertion, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rational applies to all combination of Han and DENG used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
As per claim 11, Han discloses the method of claim 3, wherein if the coding mode information of the second reference block is different from the coding mode information of the first reference block, the second motion candidate is added into the motion candidate list, or if the coding mode information of the second reference block is the same as the coding mode information of the first reference block, the second motion candidate is not added into the motion candidate list. The claim recites an alternative choice between the first limitation and the second limitation, only the first limitation is addressed. The first limitation of this claim recites a conditional limitation, namely "wherein if the coding mode information of the second reference block is different from the coding mode information of the first reference block, the second motion candidate is added into the motion candidate list." That is, the claim does not require the second motion candidate to be added into the motion candidate list if the coding mode information of the second reference block is not different from the coding mode information of the first reference block. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim does not require the second motion candidate to be added into the motion candidate list if the recited predicate condition is not met. See Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat 'l Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed. Appx. 603,607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) ("It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed."); see also Applera Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 12, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (affirming a district court's interpretation of a method claim as including a step that need not be practiced if the condition for practicing the step is not met).
As per claim 14, Han discloses the method of claim 3, wherein if a similarity between the coding mode information of the second reference block and the coding mode information of the first reference block is larger than a threshold, the second motion candidate is added into the motion candidate list, or wherein the motion candidate list is one of the following: an inter motion list, an inter mode list, an intra mode list, an intra block copy (IBC) motion list, a reconstruction-reordered IBC (RRIBC) motion list, a history-based motion vector prediction (HMVP) table, or a most probable mode (MPM) list, or wherein the motion candidate list is used for one of the following: an advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP), a merge prediction, an intra prediction, an IBC prediction, or a RRIBC prediction. The claim recites an alternative choice between three limitations, only the first limitation is addressed. The first limitation of this claim recites a conditional limitation, namely "wherein if a similarity between the coding mode information of the second reference block and the coding mode information of the first reference block is larger than a threshold, the second motion candidate is added into the motion candidate list." That is, the claim does not require the second motion candidate to be added into the motion candidate list if a similarity between the coding mode information of the second reference block and the coding mode information of the first reference block is not larger than a threshold. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim does not require the second motion candidate to be added into the motion candidate list if the recited predicate condition is not met. See Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat 'l Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed. Appx. 603,607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) ("It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed."); see also Applera Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 12, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (affirming a district court's interpretation of a method claim as including a step that need not be practiced if the condition for practicing the step is not met).
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US-20210218980-A1, US-20210203922-A1, US-20250280145-A1, US-20250267275-A1, US-20220417521-A1, US-20200413044-A1, US-20210058624-A1, US-20180242024-A1, US-20210306657-A1, US-20210360278-A1, US-20210250602-A1, US-20210160532-A1, US-20260006183-A1, US-20210281847-A1, US-10911769-B2, WO-2020016743-A2)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED JEBARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 09:00am-06:00pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/MOHAMMED JEBARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights