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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/23/2026 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 1-6 and 17-20. Claims 7-20 have been cancelled, and new claims 21-30 have been added. Claims 1, 3, and 6 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-6 and 21-30 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 21, and 26 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) 1-6 and 21-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20160277761 A1) in view of Jung et al. (US 20210266583 A1) and further in view of Choi et al. (US 20210409716 A1).
Regarding Claim 26, Li et al. 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 (Abstract; Paragraph 13; Paragraph 53), the method comprising:
processing circuitry (Paragraph 41) configured to:
receive a video bitstream comprising coding information of a current block in a current picture, the coding information indicating that the current block is coded by a flip mode in which a flipped current block being obtained by flipping locations of samples of the current block are adjusted within the current block according to the flip mode (Paragraphs 70-73; Paragraph 80; Paragraph 89; Paragraph 132; Paragraph 142);
determine a reference block from a plurality of candidate reference blocks in a reconstructed region of the current picture for the current block (Paragraphs 148-149);
determine a reconstruction block of the current block based on the determined reference block and a residual block (Paragraph 66; Paragraph 80; Paragraph 88-93); and
reconstruct the current block by adjusting locations of samples of the reconstruction block within the reconstruction block based on the flip mode (Paragraphs 90-92; Paragraph 129).
However, Li et al. does not explicitly teach determining a reference block based on template matching (TM) costs, the TM costs indicating differences between a template of the current block and respective templates of the plurality of candidate reference blocks.
Jung et al., however, teaches determining a reference block based on template matching (TM) costs, the TM costs indicating differences between a template of the current block and respective templates of the plurality of candidate reference blocks (Paragraph 122; Paragraphs 195-196; Paragraphs 201-202).
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 coding taught in Li et al. to include the reference block determination taught by Jung et al. in order to improve the coding efficiency of the video coding system (See Jung et al. Paragraph 50).
However, neither of Li et al. and Jung et al. explicitly teach “a residual block is determined based on a difference between a flipped current block and a prediction block for the flipped current block, the prediction block for the flipped current block being obtained without flipping the prediction block according to the flip mode”.
Choi et al., however, teaches a residual block is determined based on a difference between a flipped current block and a prediction block for the flipped current block, the prediction block for the flipped current block being obtained without flipping the prediction block according to the flip mode (Paragraph 335; Paragraph 420).
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 coding taught in Li et al. to include the reference block determination taught by Jung et al. in order to improve the coding efficiency of the video coding system (See Choi et al. Paragraphs 3-4).
Regarding Claim 27, Li et al., Jung et al. and Choi et al. teach the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 26, Li et al. further teaches wherein the flip mode includes one of (i) a vertical flip mode configured to adjust the locations of the samples of the current block such that an upper part and a lower part of the current block are reversed within the current block and (ii) a horizontal flip mode configured to adjust the locations of the samples of the current block such that a left part and a right part of the current block are reversed within the current block. (Paragraphs 125; Paragraphs 130-131).
Regarding Claim 28 Li et al., Jung et al. and Choi et al. teach the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 26, Li et al. further teaches wherein the encoding further comprises: encoding first coding information in the bitstream, the first coding information indicating whether the flip mode is to be applied to the current block; and encoding second coding information in the bitstream, the second coding information indicating a flipping type of the flip mode. (Paragraph 89; Paragraphs 132; Paragraphs 141-143).
Regarding Claim 29, Li et al., Jung et al. and Choi et al. teach the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 26, Li et al. further teaches wherein the determining the reference block from the plurality of candidate reference blocks further comprises: determining the plurality of candidate reference blocks within a search region of the reconstructed region of the current picture (Paragraphs 6-7; Paragraphs 208-218).
However, Li et al. does not explicitly teach determining the TM costs between the template of the flipped current block and a template of each of the plurality of candidate reference blocks; and determining the reference block from the plurality of candidate reference blocks that corresponds to a minimum TM cost among the TM costs between the template of the flipped current block and the templates of the plurality of candidate reference blocks.
Jung et al., however, teaches determining the TM costs between the template of the flipped current block and a template of each of the plurality of candidate reference blocks; and determining the reference block from the plurality of candidate reference blocks that corresponds to a minimum TM cost among the TM costs between the template of the flipped current block and the templates of the plurality of candidate reference blocks (Paragraph 122; Paragraph 195-196; Paragraphs 201-202).
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 coding taught in Li et al. to include the reference block determination taught by Jung et al. in order to improve the coding efficiency of the video coding system (See Jung et al. Paragraph 50).
Regarding Claim 30, Li et al., Jung et al. and Choi et al. teach the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 29, Li et al. further teaches wherein: based on the flip mode being a horizontal flip, a vertical range of the search region is smaller than a horizontal range of the search region, and based on the flip mode being a vertical flip, the vertical range of the search region is larger than the horizontal range of the search region (Paragraphs 6-9; Paragraphs 66-67; Paragraph 125; Paragraphs 129-130; Paragraphs 137-139; Paragraphs 208-218; Paragraph 270).
Method claims 1-5 are drawn to the decoding method of using corresponding apparatus of claims 26-30 and are rejected for the same reasons as used above. The decoding process is merely performed in the inverse of the encoding method as taught above.
Regarding Claim 6, Li et al., Jung et al. and Choi et al. teach the method of claim 1, Li et al. further teaches wherein the reconstructing further comprises: flipping the determined reference block by adjusting locations of samples of the determined reference block within the determined reference block based on the flip mode (Paragraph 67; Paragraph 129); and determining the reconstruction block based on the flipped reference block (Paragraph 66; Paragraph 80; Paragraph 88-93).
Method claims 21-25 are drawn to the method of using corresponding apparatus claims 26-30 and are rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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