DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 8-12 and 15-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien et al. (“Chien”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0084468) in view of Wang et al. (“Wang”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2008/0013623) and Leleannec et al. (“Leleannec”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2021/0266586).
In regards to claim 1, Chien teaches a method of video processing, comprising:
inserting, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, one or more block vectors corresponding to one or more non-adjacent neighboring blocks of the current video block into a list of motion candidates for the current video block (See ¶0178-0180 in view of FIG. 2A-7 wherein one or more non-adjacent neighboring blocks of the current block may be added into the candidate list; also see ¶0112),
wherein the inserting is based on a rule that specifies the one or more non-adjacent neighboring blocks are checked (See ¶0179); and
performing, based on the list of motion candidates, the conversion (See FIG. 1, 8 and 9),
wherein positions of the one or more non-adjacent neighboring blocks relative to the current video block are based on a width (W) and a height (H) of the current video block (See FIG. 5-7), and
wherein the one or more non-adjacent neighboring blocks that cover positions (x – M, y + H/2) or (x + W/2, y – M) are checked when constructing the list of motion candidates (See FIG. 5-7 in view of ¶0178-0180 wherein M may be taught as an offset, and various positions are covered, not only are both (x-M, y+H/2) and (x+W/2, y-M) seen as MV 9 and 8, respectively, but one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Chien’s teaching understands that various other coordinates may exist as well; also see ¶0112 as an example), wherein a coordinator of a top-left sample of the current video block is (x, y) (See FIG. 5-7).
Chien, however, fails to teach wherein M= 8.
That is, as described in ¶0109 by Chien, the Offsets X and Y can be fixed values or dependent on the size of the CU, with ¶0112 and FIG. 5-7 further showing that when based on the size they may have the values equal to the full width and/or height of the CU, or even half the width and/or height of the CU, yet Chien fails to explicitly describe a situation wherein such an offset is exactly equal to 8.
In a similar endeavor Wang teaches wherein M=8 (See ¶0022-0023 in view of FIG. 3 and 4 wherein block sizes may be 8x8, this is taken in view of Wang in FIG. 5-7 wherein some of the offsets may be equal to the width and/or height of the block, thus would be a size 8).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Wang into Chien because it allows for the use of block-sizes within the image to be used for processing and determination of other processes as seen in FIG. 3 and 4.
Chien, however, fails to additionally teach wherein the rule specifies that the one or more block vectors corresponding to the one or more non-adjacent neighboring blocks are inserted into the list of motion candidates after the block vectors from a history-based block vector prediction (HBVP) candidates list.
In a similar endeavor Leleannec teaches wherein the rule specifies that the one or more block vectors corresponding to the one or more non-adjacent neighboring blocks are inserted into the list of motion candidates after the block vectors from a history-based block vector prediction (HBVP) candidates list (See ¶0098 wherein HMVP [history-based motion vector predictors] merge candidates are inserted first in the merge list before the pairwise average candidates are inserted, as ¶0008 wherein average is of a pair of MVs which spatially and/or temporally surround the current block, this is taken in view of Chien’s teachings wherein it is understood that not all spatial motion vectors are adjacent neighboring blocks).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Leleannec into Chien because it allows for organization of motion vector placements in the merge list construction process as per VVC Draft standards as described in at least ¶0098.
In regards to claim 8, Chien teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the rule specifies that the one or more block vectors corresponding to the one or more non-adjacent neighboring blocks are not inserted into the list of motion candidates in response to the list of motion candidates comprising no empty entries after inserting the block vectors from (i) a history-based block vector prediction (HBVP) candidates list and/or (ii) adjacent neighboring blocks of the current video block (See ¶0178-0180 and 0112 wherein if the neighboring block motion vectors fill up the list, the system may terminate the process of adding additional candidates).
In regards to claim 9, Chien teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion comprises decoding the current video block from the bitstream (See ¶0002-0006).
In regards to claim 10, Chien teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion comprises encoding the current video block into the bitstream (See ¶0002-0006).
In regards to claims 11, 16 and 18, the claims are rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Chien in view of Wang and Leleannec, wherein the processor, system and computer-readable medium are taught as seen in ¶0251-0255.
In regards to claim 20, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 8 by Chien in view of Wang and Leleannec.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 12, 15, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien et al. (“Chien”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0084468) in view of Wang et al. (“Wang”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2008/0013623) and Leleannec et al. (“Leleannec”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2021/0266586), in further view of Gao et al. (“Gao”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2021/0266538).
In regards to claim 2, Chien fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the list comprises an intra block copy (IBC) merge list.
That is, though Chien teaches using intra-block copy mode as seen in at least ¶0204, Chien does not describe that an intra block copy merge list is created to go along with it.
In a similar endeavor Gao teaches wherein the list comprises an intra block copy (IBC) merge list (See ¶0238-0239 in view of 0206 and 0233).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Gao into Chien because it allows for the implementation of IBC which thus allows for recovery of information if needed, thus improving stability into an encoding system.
In regards to claim 3, Chien fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the list comprises an intra block copy (IBC) advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) list.
That is, Chien does indeed teach creating an advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) list as seen in at least ¶0005, along with AMVP candidates as seen in ¶0081-0082.
In a similar endeavor Gao teaches wherein the list comprises an intra block copy (IBC) advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) list (See ¶0238-0239 in view of 0206 and 0233).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Gao into Chien because it allows for the implementation of IBC which thus allows for recovery of information if needed, thus improving stability into an encoding system.
In regards to claim 12, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claims 2 and 3 by Chien in view of Wang and Leleannec, in further view of Gao.
In regards to claim 15, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 8 by Chien in view of Wang and Leleannec, in further view of Gao.
In regards to claim 17, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claims 2 and 3 by Chien in view of Wang and Leleannec, in further view of Gao.
In regards to claim 19, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claims 2 and 3 by Chien in view of Wang and Leleannec, in further view of Gao.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li et al. (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0077084) as it teaches the use of non-adjacent blocks for candidate prediction using an offset distance in the x and y directions from the current block as seen in at least 0079-0081, 0087, 0100 and FIG. 2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDEMIO NAVAS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, ~ 9 AM -6 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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
EDEMIO NAVAS JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2483
/EDEMIO NAVAS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483