DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 09/02/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined.
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
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The reference(s) listed on the Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted on 09/02/2025 has/have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449).
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 4, lines 4 and 6 each recite, “whether a utilize of apply”, which is grammatically confusing. The applicant is invited to amend each of these limitations in any reasonable way to make the language clear. For purposes of examination, each of these limitations will be reasonably interpreted as either - - whether a utilization of applying - - or - - whether to apply - - .
Regarding Claim 5, line 1, “a previous coded” should likely read - - a previously coded - - .
Regarding Claim 8, line 2 recites, “the current,”. It is unclear what this limitation refers to. Applicant is invited to either delete this limitation or provide clarification in the claim.
Examiner respectfully requests from Applicant verification and requires appropriate correction regarding these matters.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 16-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 11-13, and 19-20 of copending Application No. 19366206 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because not only the scope of the features of the claims is the same, but also, for instance, the independent claims of the instant application are broader in scope than the corresponding Claims 1, 11-13, and 19-20 of copending Application No. 19366206. Examiner further notes that any minor differences to the wording of the claims are merely a matter of semantics and do not carry significant patentable weight.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 16-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 and 17-20 of copending Application No. 19258669 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because not only the scope of the features of the claims is the same, but also, for instance, the independent claims of the instant application are broader in scope than the corresponding Claims 1 and 17-20 of copending Application No. 19258669. Examiner further notes that any minor differences to the wording of the claims are merely a matter of semantics and do not carry significant patentable weight.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Galpin et al., US Patent Application Publication No.: 2025/0254322 A1 (please note the foreign application priority data EP 22305508.8 filed 04/08/2022), hereby Galpin.
Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream. Significantly, the claimed non-transitory computer-readable recording medium is merely memory with non-functional descriptive material and is NOT implementing any actual method; no instructions/steps are being executed. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data output from and/or generated by a series of acts. In other words, the claims are directed to a mere machine-readable medium storing data content.
Applicant therefore seeks to patent the storage of a bitstream in the abstract. In other words, the claim seeks to patent the content of the information (bitstream comprising video information) and not the process itself. Moreover, this stored bitstream does not impose any definitive physical organization on the data as there is no functional relationship between the bitstream and the storage medium. Overall, Claim 20 and any claims depending therefrom are directed to mere data content (bitstream generated by a series of acts) stored as a bitstream on a computer readable recording medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, the Examiner found and continues to find that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, this claim is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable media known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. Therefore, Claim 20 is anticipated by Galpin, in which Galpin discloses the following:
“A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream (see Galpin, Figs. 2-6 and 11, and [0007], [0088], [0129], [0209])...”
EXAMINER’S NOTE: Applicant has not used the standard non-transitory CRM (non-transitory computer-readable media) claim formats of a) a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions that, when implemented by a processor, perform an encoding/decoding method [steps of encoding/decoding method] or a b) non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause it to perform a specified method that was held to recite patent-eligible product under 35 USC 101 by In re Beauregard, 53 F.3d 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1995) and endorsed by the USPTO in 77 Fed. Reg. 74618 (Dec. 16, 2014), 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas at 1-3, 8-10.
However, such standard non-transitory CRM claim formats that recite execution/implementation of a method are not subject to a non-functional descriptive material claim interpretation because such a claimed media does not merely store output data but instead stores functional, method steps that have a functional relationship with the media.
Therefore, the examiner suggests either canceling the claim(s) or amending the claim(s) to a standard non-transitory CRM format or other standard statutory class.
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 1-2 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Galpin.
Regarding Claims 1 and 16-20, Galpin discloses a method of video processing, an apparatus for video processing, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream (Figs. 1-6 and 11, specifically Figs. 2-3 and 11); see also [0007], [0088], [0129], and [0209]), comprising:
“applying, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, a process to the video unit based on coding information of a non-adjacent neighbor video unit (Figs. 2-3 and 11, and [0154], [0172], and [0177]; see also Figs. 1 and 4-6); and
performing the conversion based on the processed video unit (Figs. 2-3 and 11, and [0154], [0172], and [0177]; see also Figs. 1 and 4-6).”
Regarding Claim 2, Galpin discloses:
“wherein intra mode coding information of the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is used for at least one of: intra, intra block copy (IBC), or an inter mode coding of the video unit (Figs. 2-3 and 11, and [0154], [0172], and [0177]; see also Figs. 1 and 4-6; examiner notes that since the claim is written in the alternative, the examiner has met the limitation), and/or wherein IBC mode coding information of the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is used for at least one of: intra, intra block copy (IBC), or an inter mode coding of the video unit, and/or wherein inter mode coding information of the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is used for at least one of: intra, intra block copy (IBC), or an inter mode coding of the video unit, and/or wherein the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is a video unit in one of: a current picture, a current subpicture, a current tile, a current slice, a current coding tree unit (CTU) row, a current CTU, or a current virtual pipeline data unit (VPDU), and/or wherein the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is a video unit in one of: a reference picture, a reference subpicture, a reference tile, a reference slice, a reference CTU row, a reference CTU, or a reference VPDU, and/or wherein a position of the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is restricted according to a rule.”
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galpin, in view of Lai et al., US Patent Application Publication No.: 2023/0232012 A1, hereby Lai.
Galpin discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Regarding Claim 3, Galpin discloses:
“wherein the intra mode coding information comprises an intra mode index, and/or wherein the intra mode coding information comprises one of: an intra tool used flag, an intra tool enabled flag, or an intra on-off flag, and/or wherein the IBC mode coding information comprises a block vector, and/or wherein inter mode coding information comprises at least one of: motion vectors, block vectors, reference index, or inter prediction direction, and/or wherein the position of the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is restricted to current CTU row and/or collocated CTU row in a reference picture, and/or wherein the position of the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is restricted to current VPDU and/or collocated VPDU in a reference picture, and/or wherein the position of the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is restricted to current tile and/or collocated tile in a reference picture, and/or wherein the position of the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is restricted to current slice and/or collocated slice in a reference picture, and/or wherein the position of the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is restricted to current subpicture and/or collocated subpicture in a reference picture, and/or wherein the position of the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is restricted to current picture and/or reference pictures, and/or wherein the position of the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is restricted to not exceed a decoded region of left M1 CTUs and/or above M2 CTUs and/or right M3 CTUs, and/or the position of the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is restricted to not exceed a decoded region of left M1 VPDUs and/or above M2 VPDUs and/or right M3 VPDUs, and/or wherein the position of the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is restricted to not exceed a decoded region of a*cuWidth + b*cuHeight, wherein a and b are parameters, cuWidth represents a width of a coding unit, and cuHeight represents a height of the coding unit, and/or wherein the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is a video unit coded . . . to a current video unit (Figs. 2-3 and 11, and [0154], [0172], and [0177]; see also Figs. 1 and 4-6).”
However, although Galpin suggests the claimed the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is a video unit coded prior to a current video unit, Lai does expressly disclose the following:
“wherein the intra mode coding information comprises an intra mode index, and/or wherein the intra mode coding information comprises one of: an intra tool used flag, an intra tool enabled flag, or an intra on-off flag, and/or wherein the IBC mode coding information comprises a block vector, and/or wherein inter mode coding information comprises at least one of: motion vectors, block vectors, reference index, or inter prediction direction, and/or wherein the position of the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is restricted to current CTU row and/or collocated CTU row in a reference picture, and/or wherein the position of the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is restricted to current VPDU and/or collocated VPDU in a reference picture, and/or wherein the position of the non-adj acent neighbor video unit is restricted to current tile and/or collocated tile in a reference picture, and/or wherein the position of the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is restricted to current slice and/or collocated slice in a reference picture, and/or wherein the position of the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is restricted to current subpicture and/or collocated subpicture in a reference picture, and/or wherein the position of the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is restricted to current picture and/or reference pictures, and/or wherein the position of the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is restricted to not exceed a decoded region of left M1 CTUs and/or above M2 CTUs and/or right M3 CTUs, and/or the position of the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is restricted to not exceed a decoded region of left M1 VPDUs and/or above M2 VPDUs and/or right M3 VPDUs, and/or wherein the position of the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is restricted to not exceed a decoded region of a*cuWidth + b*cuHeight, wherein a and b are parameters, cuWidth represents a width of a coding unit, and cuHeight represents a height of the coding unit, and/or wherein the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is a video unit coded prior to a current video unit (Fig. 9, and [0061]-[0066]; examiner notes that since the claim is written in the alternative, the examiner has met the limitation).”
Accordingly, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Galpin and Lai (hereby Galpin-Lai) to modify a method of video processing, an apparatus for video processing, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream of Galpin to use the claimed the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is a video unit coded prior to a current video unit as in Lai. The motivation would have been to create the advantage of reducing the storage requirement (see Lai, Fig. 9, and [0040] and [0061]-[0066]).
Regarding Claim 4, Galpin-Lai discloses:
“wherein whether a block is a non-adjacent neighbor video unit of a current video unit is dependent on a position (x0, y0) of the block and a position (xl, yl) of the current video unit, wherein x0, y0, xl, and yl are numbers, and/or wherein whether a utilize of apply the process based on the coding information of the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is at a video unit level is based on a pre-defined rule, and/or wherein whether a utilize of apply the process based on the coding information of the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is at a video unit level is based on a syntax element, and/or wherein non-adjacent neighbor video units are checked after at least one neighbor video unit, if the at least one neighbor video unit is used to predict the current block (Lai, Fig. 9, and [0061]-[0066]; examiner notes that since the claim is written in the alternative, the examiner has met the limitation), and/or wherein the coding information of the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is used for an intra prediction mode (IPM) list generation or most probable mode (MPM) list generation of the video unit.”
The motivation that was utilized in Claim 3 applies equally as well here.
Regarding Claim 5, Galpin-Lai discloses:
“wherein the block is a previous coded video unit (Lai, Fig. 9, and [0061]-[0066]; examiner notes that since the claim is written in the alternative, the examiner has met the limitation), and/or wherein x0 is not equal to xl, and/or y0 is not equal to yl, and/or wherein an absolute value of y0 - yl is larger than or no less than b, and/or wherein an absolute value of x0 - xl is larger than or no less than a, a and b are parameters, and/or wherein the position is the center of the block, and/or wherein the position is a left top corner of the block, or the position is a right bottom corner of the block, and/or wherein the coding information is used for regular intra MPM list generation, and/or wherein the coding information is used for template-based intra mode derivation (TIMD) MPM list generation or TIMD IPM list generation, and/or wherein the coding information is used for spatial geometric partitioning mode (SGPM) MPM list generation or SGPM IPM list generation, and/or wherein the coding information is used for geometric partitioning mode (GPM) inter-intra MPM list generation or GPM IPM list generation, and/or wherein the coding information is used for template-based multiple reference line intra prediction (TMRL) MPM list generation or TMRL IPM list generation, and/or wherein the coding information is used for IBC fusion MPM list generation or IBC fusion IPM list generation, and/or wherein the coding information is used for geometrical IBC MPM list generation or geometrical IBC IPM list generation, and/or wherein the mode candidates derived from the non-adjacent neighbor video unit are put after those mode candidates derived from adjacent neighbor video units, and/or wherein mode candidates derived from the non-adjacent neighbor video unit are put after TIMD candidate or decoder side intra mode derivation (DIMD) candidate, and/or wherein an MPM/IPM list is primary MPM/IPM list and/or secondary MPM/IPM list.”
The motivation that was utilized in Claim 3 applies equally as well here.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galpin, in view of Li et al., US Patent Application Publication No.: 2023/0412794 A1, hereby Li.
Regarding Claim 6, Galpin discloses:
“wherein the coding information of the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is stored . . . (Figs. 2-3 and 11, and [0154], [0172], and [0177]; see also Figs. 1 and 4-6).”
However, although Galpin suggests the claimed local buffer, Li does expressly disclose the following:
“wherein the coding information of the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is stored or derived based on a local buffer (Figs. 26-27, and [0297]-[0307]).”
Accordingly, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Galpin and Li (hereby Galpin-Li) to modify a method of video processing, an apparatus for video processing, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream of Galpin to use the claimed local buffer as in Li. The motivation would have been to create the advantage of providing flexibility in storing, using, and updating non-adjacent spatial neighbors in the buffer (see Li, Figs. 26-27, and [0297]-[0307]).
Regarding Claim 7, Galpin-Li discloses:
“wherein the local buffer is a history-based table (Li, Figs. 26-27, and [0297]-[0307]; examiner notes that since the claim is written in the alternative, the examiner has met the limitation), and/or wherein the local buffer is represented by a look-up-table, and/or wherein one or more local buffers are maintained during a coding process of one of: a current picture, a current subpicture, a current tile, a current tile group, a current CTU, or a current CTU row, and wherein elements in the one or more local buffers are dynamically updated.”
The motivation that was utilized in Claim 6 applies equally as well here.
Regarding Claim 8, Galpin-Li discloses:
“wherein the elements in the look-up-table are updated along with an encoding/decoding of a video unit in one of: the current picture, the current, the current subpicture, the current tile, the current tile group, the current CTU or the current CTU row, and then used for coding of a future video unit in one of: the current picture, the current subpicture, the current tile, the current tile group, the current CTU, the current CTU row, or a current VPDU, and/or wherein a table length or a table size is equal to L which is a number (Li, Figs. 26-27, and [0297]-[0307]; examiner notes that since the claim is written in the alternative, the examiner has met the limitation).”
The motivation that was utilized in Claim 6 applies equally as well here.
Regarding Claim 9, Galpin-Li discloses:
“wherein the local buffer comprises coding information of at least one of: adjacent neighbor video units or non-adjacent neighbor video units (Li, Figs. 26-27, and [0297]-[0307]; examiner notes that since the claim is written in the alternative, the examiner has met the limitation), and/or wherein the coding information of one of: an intra mode coded video unit, an IBC mode coded video unit, or inter mode coded video unit is stored in the local buffer.”
The motivation that was utilized in Claim 6 applies equally as well here.
Regarding Claim 10, Galpin-Li discloses:
“wherein the local buffer is used for one of: intra mode coding, IBC mode coding, or inter mode coding of future video unit, and/or wherein the coding information of: an intra mode coded video unit, an IBC mode coded video unit, or inter mode coded video unit is stored in local buffers, separately (Li, Figs. 26-27, and [0297]-[0307]; examiner notes that since the claim is written in the alternative, the examiner has met the limitation), and/or wherein the coding information of an intra mode coded video unit is stored in a local buffer Lntra, and/or wherein the coding information of an inter mode coded video unit is stored in a local buffer Lnter, and/or wherein the coding information of an IBC mode coded video unit is stored in a local buffer LIBC, and/or wherein the coding information of at least one of: the intra mode coded video unit, the IBC mode coded video unit, or the inter mode coded video unit is stored together in a local buffer Lmm, and/or wherein a construction or generation of the look-up-table follows a first-in-first-out (FIFO) rule, and/or wherein a pruning process is applied during inserting a new intra mode candidate to the look-up-table, and/or wherein a pruning is based on comparisons of a to-be-inserted candidate and all available elements in the look-up-table, and/or wherein a pruning is based on comparisons of a to-be-inserted candidate and M elements in the look- up-table, wherein M is an integer number, and/or wherein a pruning is based on at least one of: intra mode index values or frequency of intra mode indexes, and/or wherein if there are enough coding units coded with a pre-defined intra mode index K, then the intra mode index K is allowed to be inserted to the look-up-table, and/or wherein intra mode coding for current video unit is based on coding information stored in the local buffer.”
The motivation that was utilized in Claim 6 applies equally as well here.
Regarding Claim 11, Galpin-Li discloses:
“wherein the coding information of the non-adjacent neighbor video unit is stored or derived based on a buffer, and wherein the buffer is one of: a picture wise buffer, a subpicture wise buffer, a tile wise buffer, a tile group wise buffer, a CTU wise buffer (Li, Figs. 26-27, and [0297]-[0307]; examiner notes that since the claim is written in the alternative, the examiner has met the limitation), a CTU row wise buffer, or a VPDU wise buffer, and/or wherein intra coding information is stored in MxN granularity, wherein M and N are integer numbers, and/or wherein the intra coding information is stored in luma and chroma components separately.”
The motivation that was utilized in Claim 6 applies equally as well here.
Regarding Claim 12, Galpin-Li discloses:
“wherein coding information of video units in at least one of: the current picture, the current subpicture, the current tile group, or the current tile is stored in the buffer (Li, Figs. 26-27, and [0297]-[0307]; examiner notes that since the claim is written in the alternative, the examiner has met the limitation), and/or wherein intra mode coding for current video unit is based on coding information stored in the buffer.”
The motivation that was utilized in Claim 6 applies equally as well here.
Regarding Claim 13, Galpin-Li discloses:
“wherein the coding information in the buffer is used for coding of a future video unit in at least one of: the current picture, the current subpicture, the current tile, the current tile group, the current CTU, the current CTU row, or the current VPDU (Li, Figs. 26-27, and [0297]-[0307]; examiner notes that since the claim is written in the alternative, the examiner has met the limitation), and/or wherein the coding information in the buffer is used for a coding of a future video unit in at least one of: a future picture, a future subpicture, a future tile, a future tile group, a future CTU, a future CTU row, or a future VPDU, and/or wherein positions of non-adjacent neighbor video units used for current intra mode coding are predefined.”
The motivation that was utilized in Claim 6 applies equally as well here.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
Examiner notes that multiple references cited disclose compression techniques utilizing non-adjacent neighbor video unit(s). For example, the following references show similar features in the claims, although not relied upon: Kim (WO 2024147667 A2), Fig. 107.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN M WALSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/KATHLEEN M WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights