DETAILED ACTION
This Office action for U.S. Patent Application No. 18/038,468 is responsive to the Request for Reconsideration filed 6 November 2025, in reply to the Non-Final Rejection of 6 August 2025.
Claims 1–12 and 14 are pending.
In the previous Office action, claims 1–5 and 7–11 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0099953 A1 (“Xu”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0104312 A1 (“Lim”) and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0176465 A1 (“Ray”). Claims 6 and 12 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Xu in view of Lim and Ray and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0044327 A1 (“Kim”).
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to representative claim 1 (6 November 2025 “REMARKS” (“Rem.”) 7–9) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments appear to depend on a patentable distinction between the claimed “boundary between the subblocks” and the Ray primary boundary. The specification of the present invention at paragraph 0080 defines a claimed subblock to a partial area of a transform block. Ray operates on a modern codec, such as HEVC or VVC, that uses a tree structure for coding unit partitioning. Ray ¶¶ 0046–50. Ray further at ¶¶ 0138–39 states that a “block” is a coding unit that is a partition of a coding tree unit, before discussing the prediction for a “block” relied on as teaching the claimed material for subblocks. Under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, a Ray block that is a partition of a CTU may be a claimed subblock that is a partition of a transform block. The further arguments, including the quibbles over whether a distance to a boundary should be measured as from the closest pixel of a current block or from a reference block (Rem. 8) and the exact method to calculate weights and its optimization (Rem. 8–9) do not show a patentable distinction considering the broadly claimed “determining weights corresponding to samples in the prediction blocks based on positions of the samples relative to a boundary between the subblocks” as currently presented. Applicant is invited to amend the claims to specify the claimed weighting method to overcome reliance on Ray.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 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 1–5 and 7–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0099953 A1 (“Xu”)1 in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0104312 A1 (“Lim”)2 and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0176465 A1 (“Ray”).
Xu, directed to video coding, teaches with respect to claim 1 a method for decoding a target block (¶ 0010, video decoding)
encoded in an intra block copy (IBC) mode (id., reconstructing sub-block in current block using IBC), the method comprising:
determining that the target block has been encoded in the IBC mode (¶ 0095, “The use of IBC at the block level can be signaled using a block level flag”)
. . .
generating a plurality of prediction blocks for the target block from a current picture where the target block is positioned (¶ 0099, two reference CTUs)
by using the block vectors respectively corresponding to the subblocks (¶ 0100, reconstructed samples from a previously coded CTU).
The claimed invention differs first from Xu in that the claimed invention specifies using a syntax element that determines a splitting type of the target block. Xu does not explicitly recite a syntax element for determining the quadtree structure of a CTU, instead assuming its existence in the HEVC video coding standard. However, Lim, directed to decoding video blocks, teaches with respect to claim 1:
decoding a first syntax element for determining a reference region to be referenced to split the target block (cl. 1, ¶ 0117; referring to a reference block to determine the splitting for a current block);
deriving a splitting type of the target block encoded in the IBC mode, based on pre-decoded information corresponding to the reference region (id., “the division information of the target block can be obtained based on the division information used for the reference of the neighboring picture”),
decoding block vector information on a plurality of subblocks to which the target is split according to the splitting type (¶¶ 0132–0138; applying one or more motion vectors from a reference block to the current block for a reference block or four motion vectors for subblocks of target block);
and determining block vectors respectively corresponding to the subblocks by using the block vector information (id., determining which received motion vector data to use for a current block that may have different structure than a reference block).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use explicitly signalled information for coding tree structure in the Xu system, as taught by Lim, in order to compress the coding units efficiently. Lim ¶ 0099.
The claimed invention further differs from Xu in that the claim specifies predicting the target block by weighted-summing samples of the prediction blocks, with weighting being based on the positions of the samples relative to subblock boundaries. Xu and Lim do not teach weighted sums of IBC prediction blocks. However, Ray, directed to intra prediction in a video codec, teaches with respect to claim 1:
determining weights corresponding to samples in the prediction blocks based on positions of the samples relative to a boundary between the subblocks (¶ 0145, weighting intra predictions as a gradient of distance from a primary boundary; ¶ 0005, primary boundary is a block boundary; ¶¶ 0138–39, blocks are CTU partitions); and
predicting the target block by weighted-summing the samples in the prediction blocks using the corresponding weights (id., applying the weight to a sample).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to enable weighting of a prediction sample based on a gradient distance from a boundary, as taught by Ray, in order to achieve better Rate-Distortion Optimization when applicable. Ray ¶ 0146.
Regarding claim 2, Xu in view of Lim and Ray teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the decoded information corresponding to the reference region is splitting information showing a splitting type of the reference region (Lim ¶ 0176, split flags in reference block used for target block) or intra-prediction modes corresponding to the reference region.
Regarding claim 3, Xu in view of Lim and Ray teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the first syntax element is an initial block vector indicating the reference region within the current picture (Lim ¶ 0038–40, intra prediction is performed directionally within the picture; consequentially, the reference region is from the indicated direction).
Regarding claim 4, Xu in view of Lim and Ray teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the first syntax element is an index for selecting one of block vector candidates derived from decoded blocks which are decoded prior to the target block (Lim ¶ 0078, “a prediction motion vector index indicating the optimal motion vector selected from among the motion vector candidates includes in the motion vector prediction candidate list”) and
wherein the deriving of the splitting type of the target block includes:
selecting an initial block vector from the block vector candidates by using the index (id.); and
determining the reference region by using the initial block vector (id.)
and determining the splitting type of the target block by using the decoded information corresponding to the reference region (cl. 1, ¶ 0117; referring to a reference block to determine the splitting for a current block).
Regarding claim 5, Xu in view of Lim and Ray teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the block vector information shows block vector differences between the block vectors respectively corresponding to the subblocks and the initial block vector (Lim ¶ 0134, discussion of great difference within motion vectors among reference blocks).
Regarding claim 7, Xu teaches a method for encoding a target block (¶ 0010, video encoding)
using an intra block copy (IBC) mode (id., reconstructing sub-block in current block using IBC), the method comprising:
determining that the target block has been encoded in the IBC mode (¶ 0095, “The use of IBC at the block level can be signaled using a block level flag”);
determining a splitting type of the target block (¶¶ 0075, 0124–0132, CTU split of current block);
determining block vectors for a plurality of subblocks into which the target block is split according to the splitting type (¶¶ 0093–94, 0097; block vectors at sub-block level);
generating a plurality of prediction blocks for the target block from a current picture where the target block is positioned (¶ 0099, two reference CTUs)
by using the block vectors respectively corresponding to the subblocks (¶ 0100, reconstructed samples from a previously coded CTU).
The current invention differs first from Xu in that the claimed invention specifies encoding a syntax element that determines a splitting type of the target block. Xu does not explicitly recite a syntax element for determining the quadtree structure of a CTU, instead assuming its existence in the HEVC video coding standard. However, Lim, directed to decoding video blocks, teaches with respect to claim 7:
encoding information on the splitting type and block vector information on the one or more subblocks (¶¶ 0096, 0106–107, recursive split flag indicates whether a coding unit is split into four sub-coding units in a quadtree structure or not; additionally and alternatively, ¶ 0117, referring to a reference block to determine the splitting for a current block)
wherein the information on the splitting type includes a first syntax element for determining a reference region to be referenced to determine the splitting type of the target block (id., reference block that has splitting for current block).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use explicitly signalled information for coding tree structure in the Xu system, as taught by Lim, in order to compress the coding units efficiently. Lim ¶ 0099.
The claimed invention further differs from Xu in that the claim specifies predicting the target block by weighted-summing samples of the prediction blocks, with weighting being based on the positions relative to subblock boundaries. Xu and Lim do not teach weighted sums of IBC prediction blocks. However, Ray, directed to intra prediction in a video codec, teaches with respect to claim 1:
determining weights corresponding to samples in the prediction blocks based on positions of the samples relative to a boundary between the subblocks (¶ 0145, weighting intra predictions as a gradient of distance from a primary boundary; ¶ 0005, primary boundary as a block boundary, ¶¶ 0138–39, blocks are CTU partitions); and
predicting the target block by weighted-summing the samples in the prediction blocks using the corresponding weights (id., applying the weight to a sample).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to enable weighted prediction of a prediction sample based on a gradient distance from a boundary, as taught by Ray, in order to achieve better Rate-Distortion Optimization when applicable. Ray ¶ 0146.
Regarding claim 8, Xu in view of Lim and Ray teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the splitting type of the target block is determined to be same as a splitting type derived from encoded information corresponding to the reference region (Lim ¶ 0117, referring to a reference block to determine the splitting for a current block),
which is determined by the first syntax and positioned within the current picture (Xu ¶¶ 0072–73, motion vector points to the reference block), and
wherein the encoded information corresponding to the reference region is information showing a splitting type of the reference region (Lim ¶ 0176, split flags in reference block used for target block) or intra-prediction modes corresponding to the reference region.
Regarding claim 9, Xu in view of Lim and Ray teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the first syntax element is an initial block vector indicating the reference region within the current picture (Lim ¶¶ 0038–40, intra prediction is performed directionally within the picture; consequentially, the reference region is from the indicated direction).
Regarding claim 10, Xu in view of Lim and Ray teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the first syntax element is an index for selecting one of block vector candidates derived from decoded blocks which are decoded prior to the target block (Lim ¶ 0078, “a prediction motion vector index indicating the optimal motion vector selected from among the motion vector candidates includes in the motion vector predictor candidate list”), and
wherein the reference region is indicated by an initial block vector selected rom the block vector candidates by using the index (id.).
Regarding claim 11, Xu in view of Lim and Ray teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the block vector information shows block vector differences between the block vectors respectively corresponding to the subblocks and the initial block vector (Lim ¶ 0134, discussion of great difference within motion vectors among reference blocks).
Regarding claim 14, Xu in view of Lim and Ray teaches a method for providing encoded video data to a video decoding apparatus, the method comprising:
generating a bitstream by encoding a target block using an intra block copy (IBC) mode (Xu ¶ 0010, video encoding of blocks reconstructable using IBC coding); and
transmitting the bitstream to the video decoding apparatus (¶¶ 0032–33, data transmission),
wherein generating the bitstream comprises:
[the claim 7 method] (claim 7 rejection supra).
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Lim and Ray as applied to claims 2 and 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0044327 A1 (“Kim”)3.
Claims 6 and 12 are directed to further details of the second syntax element that go beyond the scope of a mere quadtree split flag as in Lim. However, Kim, directed to an image codec, teaches with respect to claim 6 the method of claim 2, further comprising:
decoding a second syntax element for indicating an index difference (¶ 0119, partition of block encoded using index value; ¶¶ 0120–131, encoding partition as difference pattern from basic partition type), and
wherein the deriving of the splitting type of the target block includes:
selecting a prediction splitting type among a plurality of defined splitting types (Fig. 10, partition index)
by using the decoded information corresponding to the reference region (¶¶ 0118, 122; reference point); and
determining the splitting type of the target block (id., basic partition index or difference pattern).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Lim to encode specific advanced partition types, as taught by Kim, in order to allow for greater image compression efficiency. Kim ¶¶ 0026–28.
Regarding claim 12, Xu in view of Lim, Ray, and Kim teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the encoding of the information on the splitting type includes:
encoding the first syntax element (Xu ¶ 0072, previously-coded reference block);
selecting a prediction splitting type among a plurality of defined splitting types (Kim fig. 10, partition index)
by using the encoded information corresponding to the reference region (¶¶ 0118, 0122; reference point); and
encoding a second syntax element for indicating an index difference between an index corresponding to the splitting type of the target block and an index block and an index corresponding to the prediction splitting type (id., ¶ 0128; differentially-coded partition pattern).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Lim to encode specific advanced partition types, as taught by Kim, in order to allow for greater image compression efficiency. Kim ¶¶ 0026–28.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art was found using an Artificial Intelligence assisted search using an internal AI tool that uses the classification of the application under the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system, as well as from the specification, including the claims and abstract, of the application as contextual information. The documents are ranked from most to least relevant. Where possible, English-language equivalents are given, and redundant results within the same patent families are eliminated. See “New Artificial Intelligence Functionality in PE2E Search”, 1504 OG 359 (15 November 2022), “Automated Search Pilot Program”, 90 F.R. 48,161 (8 October 2025).
US 2024/0283915 A1
US 2022/0030251 A1
KR 20170122350 A
WO 2020/141831 A2
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David N Werner whose telephone number is (571)272-9662. The examiner can normally be reached M--F 7:30--4:00 Central.
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, Dave Czekaj can be reached at 571.272.7327. 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.
/David N Werner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
1 This reference was cited as a ‘Y’ reference in the International Search Report for corresponding Application PCT/KR2021/017319. It is listed in the Information Disclosure Statement.
2 This reference is an English-language equivalent of KR 10-2018-0121908, cited as a ‘Y’ reference in the International Search Report for corresponding Application PCT/KR2021/017319. It is listed in the Information Disclosure Statement.
3 This reference is an English-language equivalent of WO 2012/044124 A2, cited as a ‘Y’ reference in the International Search Report for corresponding Application PCT/KR2021/017319. It is listed in the Information Disclosure Statement.