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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/30/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/08/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant previously filed claims 1-20. Claims 2-4 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 5-6, 8-10, and 21-27 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1, 5-13, and 21-27 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 23, and 27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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, 5-13, and 21-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 20200186815 A1) in view of Goswami et al. (US 20230098057 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yu et al. teaches a method of video decoding (Fig. 5; Paragraph 73), comprising:
receiving a coded video bitstream that includes a current picture including a current block coded with a prediction mode that is an intra block copy (IBC) mode or an intra template matching (IntraTMP) mode (Paragraph 61; Paragraph 74);
determining an intra prediction mode based on reconstructed samples of a reference block in the current picture (Paragraphs 56-57; Paragraphs 62-65; Paragraphs 70-71; Paragraphs 77-82);
determining a transform set for the current block, based on the intra prediction mode that is determined based on the reconstructed samples of the reference block in the current picture (Paragraphs 17-22; Paragraphs 25-36; Paragraphs 54-61; Paragraphs 70-71; Paragraphs 77-82); and
performing an inverse transform on the current block according to the determined transform set (Paragraph 76).
However, Yu et al. does not explicitly teach the reference block being indicated by a block vector of the current block.
Goswami et al., however, teaches determining an intra prediction mode based on reconstructed samples of a reference block in the current picture, the reference block being indicated by a block vector of the current block (Paragraph 117; Paragraph 123; Paragraph 131).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the video decoding as taught in Yu et al. to include the block vector as in Goswami et al. in order to improve compression efficiency (See Goswami et al. Paragraph 139)
Regarding Claim 5, Yu et al. and Goswami et al. teach the method of claim 1, Yu et al. further teaches wherein the determining the intra prediction mode includes determining the intra prediction mode based on decoder-side intra mode derivation (DIMD): calculating frequencies of directions of the reconstructed samples in the reference block; and determining the intra prediction mode that is associated with the most frequently used direction in the directions (Paragraphs 17-22; Paragraphs 54-61; Paragraphs 74-76).
Regarding Claim 6, Yu et al. and Goswami et al. teach the method of claim 1, Yu et al. further teaches wherein the method further comprises: determining a content type of the reconstructed samples of the reference block; and determining a transform in the transform set for the current block according to whether the determined content type is screen content (Paragraphs 17-22; Paragraphs 54-62; Paragraphs 74-76).
Regarding Claim 7, Yu et al. and Goswami et al. teach the method of claim 6, Yu et al. further teaches wherein the determining the transform comprises: determining that the transform is a first transform in the transform set based on the determined content type being the screen content; and determining that the transform is a second transform in the transform set based on the determined content type being non-screen content, the second transform being different from the first transform (Paragraphs 17-22; Paragraphs 54-62; Paragraphs 74-76).
Regarding Claim 8, Yu et al. and Goswami et al. teach the method of claim 6, Yu et al. further teaches wherein the determining the content type comprises: determining a number of color values of the reconstructed samples of the reference block; and when the number of color values is less than a threshold of color values, determining the content type as the screen content (Paragraphs 17-22; Paragraphs 54-62; Paragraphs 74-81).
Regarding Claim 9, Yu et al. and Goswami et al. teach the method of claim 8, Yu et al. further teaches wherein the color values of the reconstructed samples of the reference block are associated with a specific color component (Paragraphs 17-22; Paragraphs 54-62; Paragraphs 74-81).
Regarding Claim 10, Yu et al. and Goswami et al. teach the method of claim 8, Yu et al. further teaches wherein the color values of the reconstructed samples of the reference block are associated with multiple color components (Paragraphs 17-22; Paragraphs 54-62; Paragraphs 74-81).
Regarding Claim 11, Yu et al. and Goswami et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the determining the intra prediction mode and the determining the transform set are performed only when the current block is in an intra slice of the current pictsure (Paragraphs 17-22; Paragraphs 54-62; Paragraphs 74-81).
Regarding Claim 12, Yu et al. and Goswami et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the determining the transform set comprises: determining the transform set for the current block according to the determined intra prediction mode using a look-up table that maps intra prediction modes to transform sets (Paragraphs 17-22; Paragraphs 54-62; Paragraphs 74-81)..
Regarding Claim 13, Yu et al. and Goswami et al. teach the method of claim 12, wherein the transform set for the current block is a secondary transform set; and the mapping between the intra prediction modes indicated by mode numbers (IntraPredMode) and the transform sets including 4 low-frequency non-separable transform (LFNST) sets indicated by LFNST set indices 0 to 3 is shown in the look-up table below: IntraPredMode LFNST set index IntraPredMode < 0 1 0 <= IntraPredMode <= 1 0 2 <= IntraPredMode <= 12 1 13 <= IntraPredMode <= 23 2 24 <= IntraPredMode <= 44 3 45 <= IntraPredMode <= 55 2 56 <= IntraPredMode <= 80 1 81 <= IntraPredMode <= 83 0 (Paragraphs 17-22; Paragraphs 54-62; Paragraphs 74-81).
Regarding Claim 21, Yu et al. and Goswami et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the determining the intra prediction mode includes applying one or more spatial filters to the reconstructed samples in the reference block to determine the intra prediction mode (Paragraph 4; Paragraphs 7-22; Paragraphs 25-36; Paragraph 54-62; Paragraphs 68-76; Paragraph 82).
Regarding Claim 22, Yu et al. and Goswami et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the determining the intra prediction mode includes: calculating frequencies of directions of the reconstructed samples in the reference block; and determining the intra prediction mode that is associated with the most frequently used direction in the directions (Paragraph 4; Paragraphs 7-22; Paragraphs 25-36; Paragraph 54-62; Paragraphs 68-76; Paragraph 82).
Claims 23-26 are drawn to the encoding method corresponding to the decoding method of claims 1, 5, 21 and 22 and recite similar limitations as those rejected above merely performed in the inverse. Yu et al. further teaches an encoding method corresponding to the decoding method (Abstract, “A process for selecting a transform set for a prediction block. The process can be used in both an encoder and a decoder. For example, the process can be used in both an encoder and a decoder for a prediction block that has been predicted from a reference block.”).
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 claims a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III).
The memory storing the claimed bitstream in claim 27 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Wang which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream.
Further, Non-Transitory Computer-Readable medium claim 27 is drawn to the encoding method of claim 23, and would therefore be rejected for the same reasons as used above for claim 23. Yu et al. further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform a method of encoding a bitstream (Paragraph 89).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights