Application No. 17/116,137
`Reply to Office Action Dated October 14, 2021
`
`REMARKS
`
`Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of this application in view of the above
`
`amendments and the following remarks. Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-9 will be pending upon entry of
`
`this amendment. Claims 1, 4, and 7-9 have been amended. Claims 2 and 5 are canceled herein.
`
`No new matter has been addedto the application.
`
`This response is being submitted with an After Final Consideration Pilot Program
`
`request.
`
`Applicant thanks the Examinerfor the indication that claims 2 and 5 include allowable
`
`subject matter. As discussed in further detail below, Applicant has amended claims 1 and 4 to
`
`include the subject matter of claims 2 and 5, respectively.
`
`In the Office Action, claims 1, 3-4, and 6-9 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Liaoet al. (U.S. 2021/0051335) in view of Ye et al. (U.S. 2020/0366901). In
`
`response, Applicant has amended claims 1 and4 to include the subject matter of claims 2 and 5,
`
`respectively.
`
`Applicant notes that Ye describes disabling a sub-block based merge mode, CIIP mode,
`
`and a triangle partition mode when cbWidthxcbHeightis smaller than 64 (for example, block
`
`width times block height is equal to 32). See [0123]. Disabling merge modes based on the
`
`product of the block width and block height is essentially the same as disabling merge modes
`
`based on the area of the block. In contrast, amended claim 1, for example, describes disabling a
`
`first mode and storing of an index based on width-to-height or height-to-width ratio of a block.
`
`Onetechnical effect of this distinguishing feature is that the processing load and coding amount
`
`can be decreased according to a width-to-height ratio or a height-to-width ratio of an image
`
`block.
`
`Applicant submits claims | and 4 are allowable over Liao and Ye. Dependentclaims 3
`
`and 9 are allowable for the features recited therein as well as for the reasons discussed above
`
`with respect to claims 1. Dependentclaim 6 is allowable for the features recited therein as well
`
`as for the reasons discussed above with respect to claims 4.
`
`Although the language of claims 7 and 8 are not identical to the language of claims | and
`
`4, respectively, the allowability of claims 7 and 8 will become apparentin light of the discussion
`
`

`

`Application No. 17/116,137
`Reply to Office Action Dated October 14, 2021
`
`above with respect to claims 1 and 4, respectively. Applicant submits claims 7 and 8 are
`
`allowable over Liao and Ye.
`
`Closing
`
`All of the claims remaining in the application are now clearly allowable. Favorable
`
`consideration and a Notice of Allowanceare earnestly solicited.
`
`In the event the Examiner finds minor informalities that can be resolved by telephone
`
`conferenceor if the Examinerbelieves a telephone conference would facilitate prosecution of this
`
`application, the Examineris urged to contact Applicant’s undersigned representative by telephone
`
`at (206) 622-4900 in order to expeditiously resolve prosecution of this application.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Seed Intellectual Property Law Group Lip
`
`/Blake K. Kumabe/
`Blake K. Kumabe
`Registration No. 63,240
`
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, Washington 98104
`Phone: (206) 622-4900 | Fax:
`
`(206) 682-6031
`
`BK1:dmk
`82517411
`
`