DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the application filing on 5 OCTOBER 2025 and the Information Disclosure Statement.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 11/11/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventive concept under unity of invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the telephonic interview held on 1 SEPTEMBER 2026 with Applicant’s representative Daniel McClure (Reg. No. 38,962). See attached PTO-413B.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2024/0406410 A1 (hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a method of video coding ([0002], “video signal processing method”), the method comprising:
receiving input data associated with a current block, wherein the input data comprises pixel data to be encoded at an encoder side or data associated with the current block to be decoded at a decoder side ([0002], “video signal is encoded or decoded.” FIG. 1 depicts encoding apparatus 100 receiving video signal for encoding. FIG. 2 depicts receiving video signal bitstream for decoding. [0006], “LIC mode is used in the current block”);
determining a first flag to indicate whether to apply LIC (Local Illumination Compensation) process for a candidate ([0164], “a syntax element (lic_flag) indicating whether LIC is applied to a current coding unit (block) may be signaled based on a coding unit. lic_flag may be signaled based on the value of pps_lic_enabled_flag”);
determining a second flag to indicate whether the first flag is correct or not ([0164], “a syntax element (lic_flag) indicating whether LIC is applied to a current coding unit (block) may be signaled based on a coding unit. lic_flag may be signaled based on the value of pps_lic_enabled_flag.” Note, the enabled LIC enabled flag dictates whether the LIC is enabled and subsequently the LIC flag indicates true for enabling and applying LIC or false for disabling and not applying LIC); and
encoding or decoding the current block by using coding information comprising LIC prediction generated by applying the LIC process to a target candidate according to the first flag and the second flag ([0006], “LIC mode is used in the current block.” [0164], “a syntax element (lic_flag) indicating whether LIC is applied to a current coding unit (block) may be signaled based on a coding unit. lic_flag may be signaled based on the value of pps_lic_enabled_flag”).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses every limitation of claim 1, as outlined in claim 1. Additionally, Kim discloses wherein when the second flag is true, the LIC process is applied if the first flag is true and the LIC process is not applied if the first flag is false ([0164], “a syntax element (lic_flag) indicating whether LIC is applied to a current coding unit (block) may be signaled based on a coding unit. lic_flag may be signaled based on the value of pps_lic_enabled_flag.” Note, when lic_flag is true and pps_lic_enabled_flag is true, the LIC process is applied. The two “if” statements represent contingent limitations, where only one is required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim to perform said method. See MPEP § 2111.04(II)).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Kim discloses wherein when the second flag is false, the LIC process is not applied if the first flag is true and the LIC process is applied if the first flag is false ([0164], “a syntax element (lic_flag) indicating whether LIC is applied to a current coding unit (block) may be signaled based on a coding unit. lic_flag may be signaled based on the value of pps_lic_enabled_flag.” Note, when lic_flag is false and pps_lic_enabled_flag is true, the LIC process is not applied. The two “if” statements represent contingent limitations, where only one is required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim to perform said method. See MPEP § 2111.04(II)).
Regarding claim 7, the limitations are the same as those in claim 1; however, written in machine form instead of method form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 1, applies equally as well to claim 7. Additionally, Kim teaches the apparatus comprising one or more electronics or processors ([0069], “the video encoders (103) and (303), and the video decoders (110) and (210) can be implemented using one or more processors that execute software instructions”).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2024/0406410 A1 (hereinafter “Kim”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0328249 A1 (hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Kim fails to expressly disclose wherein the second flag is coded by using one or more context coded bins.
However, Li teaches wherein the second flag is coded by using one or more context coded bins ([0106], “the context model for a LIC flag (e.g., lic_flag) of a current block can be derived based on more than two neighbouring blocks of the current block.” [0107], “four values of the ctxInc can be provided to a first context coded bin (e.g., binIdx=0) of lic_flag”).
Before effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used context coded bins for syntax elements, as taught by Li ([0106-0107]), in Kim’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Kim’s invention, by incorporating Li’s invention, to improve transmission across different devices, storage, and networks with minimal quality degradation (Li: [0004])
Regarding claim 5, Kim and Li disclose every limitation of claim 4, as outlined above. Additionally, Li discloses wherein the second flag is coded by using one or more context variables ([0106], “the context model for a LIC flag (e.g., lic_flag) of a current block can be derived based on more than two neighbouring blocks of the current block.” [0107], “four values of the ctxInc can be provided to a first context coded bin (e.g., binIdx=0) of lic_flag”). The same motivation of claim 4 applies to claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Kim and Li disclose every limitation of claim 5, as outlined above. Additionally, Li discloses wherein selection of said one or more context variables is dependent on whether the LIC process is on or off for one or more neighbouring blocks ([0108], “In an example, the ctxInc for lic_flag can be set as 3 based on a combination of following two conditions: (1) N or more of the 5 (e.g., A0, A1, B0, B1, and B2 in FIG. 5) spatial neighbours are available. In an example, N is equal to 4. (2) a LIC flag for each of the available spatial neighbours is false. Otherwise, if at least one of the two conditions is not met, the ctxInc of lic_flag can be derived according to conditions of the left and above neighbours, condL and condA respectively. The condL and condA can be determined based on Table 6. The ctxInc can be determined as 0, 1, or 2, based on equation (11)”). The same motivation of claim 4 applies to claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Publication No. 2021/0377517 A1 (hereinafter “Chen”) – Describes the use of two LIC flags at the CU level. A first flag defining enablement for a group of CUs and a second flag for each CU, which can control whether the flag is inherited. See Chen, FIG. 11 and ¶ [0081].
U.S. Publication No. 2024/0406434 A1 (hereinafter “Laroche”) – Describes coding a LIC flag and instances for utilizing a default value. See Laroche, ¶ [0278] and Tables 4 and 5.
U.S. Publication No. 2025/0119565 A1 (hereinafter “Zhang”) – Describes conditions for inverting or flipping a LIC flag value from true to false and false to true. See Zhang, ¶ [0187].
U.S. Publication No. 2020/0260119 A1 (hereinafter “Esenlik”) – Describes defining the LIC flag as being true or false with either 1 and 0, respectively, or 0 and 1, respectively. See Esenlik, ¶ [0174].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-0677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 AM - 5PM EST.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/STUART D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights