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 10/30/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues with respect to the independent claims that Xu, 2020/0236366 A1, in view of Tabatabai, US 2015/0049813 A1, does not disclose:
wherein determination of the candidate BVP is based on:
an intra block copy (IBC) reference region of a current block of content; and
at least one of:
a difference between a horizontal position of the current block and a width
of the current block, or
a difference between a vertical position of the current block and a height of
the current block; and
The Examiner respectfully submits that using a “difference between horizontal/vertical position of the current block and a width/height of the current block” is, according to the Applicant’s specification (e.g. figs. 17b-c), merely a tool for describing the position of the invalid prediction region with respect to a current coding unit/CU, and is therefore not a novel or non-obvious feature over the prior art. For instance, the difference between the vertical position of the current block, as measured from the top left corner of the block, and a height of the current block results in a vertical position cbY – cbHeight that is one block width above the top edge of the current block. In Tabatabai, this position is the border of the invalid region. In other words, the claimed “difference” appears only as a means to describe the location of the same invalid coding region with respect to current coding unit described in the secondary reference, Tabitabai. Tabitabai discloses this same region, with a width and position defined by the size and position, respectively, of a current CU. See
Although Tabitabai does not explicitly mention current CU position coordinates as part of calculating the invalid region position, and hence the constraints on the BVP candidates of the current CU, one of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the location of this region must be determined with respect to a current CU position. The coding standards upon which the proposals of Xu, Tabitabai, and Applicant’s invention are based use CU position to determine search regions (See e.g. [0122] in Xu) and candidate lists, but this does not require explicit coding of coordinate information in connection with a motion vector. See (See Xu, [0020], Tabitabai,
Where Applicant argues on page Tabatabai’s proposal concerns only the horizontal and vertical components of the motion vector and not the position of the CU in a picture, Applicant refers to the coding of MVx and MVy components in the reference as circumstantial evidence that Tabatabai “is not concerned with the horizontal and vertical position of its CU”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Motion vector encoding in general does not involve a position coding, because the MVs are coded as associated with target blocks, not by their own position coordinates. This practice accords with the definition of vectors more generally as having magnitude and direction, but no specified position. Applicant takes Tabatabai’s disclosure in [0030] to encode “only the MVx and MVy value, which exceeds the block width value W or height value H” to incorrectly suggest that there is no consideration of a target block position. This section is referring to coding only the portion of the vector extending beyond the invalid coding region, rather than the entire vector magnitude starting from the CU. Since all MVs must exceed the size of the invalid region, it is redundant to code x and y MV component information that falls within this region. This disclosure is concerned with more efficiently coding magnitude information of an MV of a CU target block position, not with eliminating position as suggested by Applicant’s arguments.
Additionally, the claimed BVP candidate list formation based on a difference between a position of a current block and a width of the current block is a different process from the MV coding for transmission disclosed in Xu [0030], which takes place after the encoder selects BVP candidates for encoding and transmission. See Xu figures 9a-c, [0123], and [0124].
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.
Claims 1-6, and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, US 2020/0236366 A1, in view of Tabatabai, US 2015/0049813 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses: a method comprising:
based on a determination that a quantity of candidate block vector predictors (BVPs) in a list of candidate BVPs is less than a threshold value, updating, by a computing device, the list of candidate BVPs with a candidate BVP, wherein determination of the candidate BVP is based on:
an intra block copy (IBC) reference region of a current block of content (See [0127], which discloses adding candidates to a candidate list until a threshold number of candidates is reached. See also last two lines in [0126], where it discloses that where the prediction mode for the current block is the IBC mode, the candidate predictors can be block vector predictors, (BVP).); and
performing, based on the updated list of candidate BVPs, at least one of:
encoding of the current block (See [0129], lines 1-4.), or
decoding of the current block (See [0129], lines 1-4.).
Xu does not disclose:
wherein determination of the candidate BVP is based on… at least one of:
a difference between a horizontal position of the current block and a width of the current block, or
a difference between a vertical position of the current block and a height of the current block
However, Tabatabai discloses this limitation in an analogous art.
See figure 1 in Tabatabai, which discloses an invalid candidate motion vector/block vector predictor search range in the vicinity of a current block. Specifically, an invalid range for a BVP is equal to the height of the current block in the y direction and is equal to a width of the current block in the x direction. See also [0027], which discloses, “As demonstrated in the figure, the absolute values of horizontal (MVx) and vertical (MVy) motion vector components in intra-block copying mode cannot be both less than the size of the current CU. In the other words, if MVx is less than CU width (W), abs(MVy) has to be larger than the height (H) of current CU. IMVyl can be reduced to save bits in coding the value.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to prohibit BVP candidate selections from a region within a threshold distance of the current block defined by the height of current block in the vertical direction and the width of the current block in the y direction, as disclosed in Tabatabai, in order to prevent redundancy in MV coding of intra-block copy mode, as well as to prevent referencing a location that overlaps with the current block, causing prediction error. See Tabatabai, [0027].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Xu in view of Tabatabai discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which depends claim 2. This combination, specifically Xu, further discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the encoding of the current block comprises:
encoding the current block based on a second candidate BVP in the updated list of candidate BVPs (See [0131], disclosing updating the candidate list using new vectors.), and
determining a prediction error between a reference block, associated with the second candidate BVP (See [0110], disclosing signaling a BV difference between a block vector and its predictor.), and the current block.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Xu in view of Tabatabai discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which depends claim 3. This combination, specifically Xu, further discloses: the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving an indication of a second candidate BVP in the updated list of candidate BVPs, wherein the decoding of the current block comprises decoding the current block based on the second candidate BVP (See [0131].).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Xu in view of Tabatabai discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which depends claim 4. This combination, specifically Xu, further discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the candidate BVP indicates a displacement from the current block to a boundary of the IBC reference region (See [0122], which discloses, “In an example, when a search range is restrained in intra block copy, a BV of a current block is bounded by a current CTB boundary,).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Xu in view of Tabatabai discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which depends claim 5. This combination, specifically Xu, further discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the candidate BVP indicates a displacement from the current block to a position within the IBC reference region (See [0121], which discloses with respect to figure 9D a search range for a BV of a current block’s including previously coded blocks 916-918.).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Xu in view of Tabatabai discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which depends claim 6. This combination, specifically Xu, further discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the candidate BVP indicates a displacement from the current block to a position that is between two boundaries of the IBC reference region (See figure 8, showing a block vector 850 pointing to a location within a search range (IBC reference region) 860.).
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Xu in view of Tabatabai discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which depends claim 8. This combination, specifically Tabatabi, further discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein:
a height of the current block is cbHeight; and
based on a vertical distance of a horizontal edge of the IBC reference region, from a position
of the current block, being greater than or equal to the height of the current block, the candidate BVP
indicates a horizontal displacement of zero and a vertical displacement of -cbHeight from the position
of the current block.
See [0062] of Tabatabai, which discloses: “For the first CU with intra-block copying mode in a CTU, a check is made (a determination) 98 if a directional component (e.g., horizontal) block vector Bvy ≥-N, or abs (Bvy) ≤ N, where N is the width of CU; if true, then default By predictor is (-N, 0).”
In other words, this section discloses, based on a horizontal distance Bvy (horizontal component of a block vector) being greater than or equal to current block width N, the candidate BVP indicates the block width as the horizontal displacement, and the BV predictor is given as (-N, 0).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to set a candidate block vector predictor to a value of (0, N), based on a vertical distance of a horizontal edge of the IBC region’s being greater than or equal to the current block height, in order to more efficiently encode a BV differential value.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Xu in view of Tabatabai discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which depends claim 9. This combination, specifically, Tabatabai, further discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein:
a width of the current block is cbWidth;
a height of the current block is cbHeight; and
the candidate BVP indicates a horizontal displacement and a vertical displacement, from a position of the current block, of -cbWidth and -cbHeight, respectively (See step 32 in figure 2.), based on:
a horizontal distance of a vertical edge of the IBC reference region, from the position of the current block, being greater than or equal to the width of the current block (See figure 1, showing an invalid IBC reference region within one width unit of the current block and one height unit of the current block.); and
a vertical distance of a horizontal edge of the IBC reference region, from the position of the current block, being greater than or equal to the height of the current block (See figure 1, showing an invalid IBC reference region within one width unit of the current block and one height unit of the current block.).
Method claim 10 differs from method claim 1 only in its recitation of receiving an indication of a candidate BVP in the update list of candidate BVPs.
This further limitation is also disclosed in Xu at least in [0132], where it discloses: “Additional signaling can indicate (i) which of the previous default vectors are to be inherited and/or (ii) whether one or more replacement or new vectors is to be added.”
Method claims 11-13 substantially correspond, respectively, to method claims 4-6, differing only in their inheritance of the above limitation from claim 10. Therefore, method claims are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as set forth above with respect to claims
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Xu in view of Tabatabai discloses the limitations of claim 14, upon which depends claim 10. This combination, specifically Xu, further discloses: the method of claim 10, wherein the updating the list of candidate BVPs comprises replacing at least one second candidate BVP, in the list of candidate BVPs, with the at least one candidate BVP (See [0133], which disclose replacing vectors in a set of candidate block vector predictors.).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Xu in view of Tabatabai discloses the limitations of claim 10, upon which depends claim 15. This combination, specifically Xu, further discloses: the method of claim 10, further comprising receiving an indication of a prediction error of the current block, wherein the decoding the current block comprises decoding the current block further based on the prediction error (See [0124], a “difference” is a prediction error between the current block and the reference block.).
Encoding claims 16-20 correspond, respectively, to decoding claims 10-14, insomuch as they differ only in their respective recitations of an “decoding method” or an “encoding method.” Therefore, encoding method claims 16-20 are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above for decoding method claims 10-14, respectively.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, in view of Tabatabai, in further view of Jeon, US 2017/0155914 A1
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Xu in view of Tabatabai discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which depends claim 7. This combination does not disclose: the method of claim 1, wherein:
a width of the current block is cbWidth; and
based on a horizontal distance of a vertical edge of the IBC reference region, from a position
of the current block, being greater than or equal to the width of the current block, the candidate BVP
indicates a horizontal displacement of -cbWidth and a vertical displacement of zero from the position
of the current block.
See [0103] of Jeon, which discloses: “For the first CU with intra-block copying mode in a CTU, a check is made 98 if a directional component (e.g., horizontal) block vector BVy ≥-N, or abs (BVy) ≤ N, where N is the width of CU; if true, then default BVy predictor is (-N, 0).”
In other words, this section discloses, based on a horizontal distance BVy (horizontal component of a block vector) being greater than or equal to current block width N, the candidate BVP indicates the block width as the horizontal displacement, and the BV predictor is given as (-N, 0).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate a default candidate BVP having a horizontal displacement equal to the width of the current block, as disclosed in Jeon, in order to provide a minimum distance default vector predictor with a valid range; as seen in figure 1, block vector predictors having a horizontal component less than W or a vertical component less than H are invalid because they point to block overlapping with the current block. Setting a candidate BVP width to -cbWidth creates a minimally valid predictor, leading to greater coding efficiency.
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 KYLE M LOTFI whose telephone number is (571)272-8762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/KYLE M LOTFI/Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights