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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Chien, Wang, Leleannec and Gao fail to teach or disclose “wherein the list comprises an intra block copy (IBC) advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) list or an IBC merge list”, specifically in that one or more block vectors corresponding to one or more non-adjacent neighboring blocks of the current video block are inserted into the list. That is, although Gao teaches an intra block copy (IBC) advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) list or an IBC merge list, yet Gao fails to disclose that one or more block vectors corresponding to one or more non-adjacent neighboring blocks of the current video block are inserted into an IBC AMVP list or an IBC merge list.
However, reading the claims in the broadest reasonable sense, the examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In particular, Chien teaches in at least ¶0178-0180 and FIG. 2A-7 wherein one or more non-adjacent neighboring blocks of the current block are added [inserted] into the candidate list, even so far as to mention that such a candidate list may be one of an AMVP candidate list as seen in ¶0107-0108, of note throughout the specifications that indeed AMVP mode may be used. Gao, in a similar endeavor, also teaches the use of candidate lists, in particular the use of IBC AMVP candidate list as seen in ¶0239-0240. Not only may motion vectors be inserted into the candidate list as described in at least ¶0194 and 0230-0231, but it is noted by the examiner that the entire point of having a candidate list is to insert candidates into the list, thus it is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that of course vectors would be inserted into a candidate list if the system comprises a candidate list. Either way, the teaching of Gao using IBC AMVP candidate lists in particular is incorporated into Chien’s teachings of using motion vectors from non-adjacent neighboring blocks being added into a candidate list is obvious as it allows for a more encompassing reconstruction of motion information as taught by Gao.
Therefore the rejection of claim(s) 1 is/are maintained. Regarding arguments pertaining to claim(s) 11, 16 and 18, for reasons similar to those discussed above for claim 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Therefore the rejection of claim(s) 11, 16 and 18 is/are maintained. Regarding claim(s) 8-10, 15, 17 and 20, the claim(s) is/are dependent upon claim(s) 1, 11, 16 and 18 and are still rejected under the same basis as claim(s) 1, 11, 16 and 18 and the arguments presented above.
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, 15-18 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 further view of Gao et al. (“Gao”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2021/0266538)..
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.
Finally, Chien additionally fails to teach wherein the list comprises an intra block copy (IBC) advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) list or an IBC merge list.
In a similar endeavor Gao teaches wherein the list comprises an intra block copy (IBC) advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) list or an 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 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, in further view of Gao, wherein the processor, system and computer-readable medium are taught as seen in ¶0251-0255.
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 claim 3 by Chien in view of Wang and Leleannec, in further view of Gao.
In regards to claim 20, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 8 by Chien in view of Wang and Leleannec, in further view of Gao.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 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 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 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 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
Prosecution Insights