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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I including claims 1-5, 19-23, and 37-38 in the reply filed on 6/18/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-18, 24-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/18/25.
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, 3, 19, 21, 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0039429 A1 (“Zhang”) in view of WO 2024/153198 A1 (“Lai”) in further view of US 2020/0359040 A1 (“Xu2”) (Note: Lai was already attached in the previous office action).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a method of decoding video data, the method comprising: determining to decode a first block of the video data (e.g. see block, paragraphs [0097], [0509]) using intra block copy merge mode with block vector differences (IBC-MBVD) (e.g. see IBC MBVD merge flag, paragraphs [1787]-[1791]); decoding the first block (e.g. see encoder in Fig. 2 and/or decoder in Fig. 3) based on a determination of whether to use IBC-MBVD (e.g. see IBC MBVD merge flag, paragraphs [1787]-[1791]).
Although Zhang discloses IBC-MBVD, it is noted Zhang differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose processing a first syntax element indicative of whether to use IBC-MBVD with fractional-pel offsets or to use IBC-MBVD with integer-pel offsets; and decoding based on a determination of whether to use IBC-MBVD with fractional-pel offsets or to use IBC-MBVD with integer-pel offsets. Lai however, teaches processing a first syntax element indicative of whether to use IBC-MBVD with fractional-pel offsets or to use IBC-MBVD with integer-pel offsets (e.g. see syntax to control the on-off of fractional BV refinement on IBC, paragraphs [0207]-[0209]); decoding (e.g. see decoder in Fig. 1B) based on a determination of whether to use IBC-MBVD with fractional-pel offsets or to use IBC-MBVD with integer-pel offsets (e.g. see syntax to control the on-off of fractional BV refinement on IBC, paragraphs [0207]-[0209]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Zhang and Lai before him/her, to modify the Method, apparatus, and medium for video processing of Zhang with the teachings of Lai in order to improve coding efficiency of IBC.
Furthermore, although Zhang discloses intra block copy (IBC) regular merge mode, it is noted Zhang differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose determining that intra block copy (IBC) regular merge mode is disabled for a second block of video data; based on determining that IBC regular merge mode is disabled for the second block, not decoding a second syntax element indicating a maximum number of IBC merge candidates for the second block; and based on determining that IBC regular merge mode is disabled for the second block, setting a value of the second syntax element to a default integer number. Xu2 however, teaches determining that intra block copy (IBC) regular merge mode is disabled for a second block of video data (e.g. see sps_ibc_enabled_flag in Table 4, paragraphs [0127]-[0130]); based on determining that IBC regular merge mode is disabled for the second block, not decoding a second syntax element indicating a maximum number of IBC merge candidates for the second block (e.g. see if sps_ibc_enabled_flag is not true in Table 4, max_num_merge_cand_minus_max_num_ibc_cand in Table 4 that specifies the maximum number of IBC merge mode candidates would not be coded/decoded, i.e. it would not be present, paragraphs [0127]-[0130]); and based on determining that IBC regular merge mode is disabled for the second block, setting a value of the second syntax element to a default integer number (e.g. see if sps_ibc_enabled_flag is not true in Table 4, max_num_merge_cand_minus_max_num_ibc_cand in Table 4 would not be coded/decoded, i.e. it would not be present, and see MaxNumIBCMergeCand is set to 0, paragraphs [0127]-[0130]; a person having ordinary skill in the art would have no difficulty recognizing that MaxNumIBCMergeCand set to 0 is equivalent to setting max_num_merge_cand_minus_max_num_ibc_cand = MaxNumMergeCand in the equation in paragraph [0129]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Zhang, Lai and Xu2 before him/her, to incorporate the teachings of Xu into the Method, apparatus, and medium for video processing of Zhang as modified by Lai in order to improve coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang in view of Lai further teaches wherein processing the syntax element comprises parsing the syntax element in a header applicable to the first block (Lai: e.g. see header, paragraphs [0207]-[0209]), the syntax element having a value indicative of using IBC- MBVD with fractional-pel offsets (e.g. see syntax to control the on-off of fractional BV refinement on IBC, paragraphs [0207]-[0209]). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 37, Zhang further discloses further comprising at least one of a camera to capture the video data or a display to display the video data (e.g. see display device, paragraph [0090]).
Regarding claims 19, 21, 38, the claims recite analogous limitations to the claims above and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim(s) 5, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0039429 A1 (“Zhang”) in view of WO 2024/153198 A1 (“Lai”) in further view of US 2020/0359040 A1 (“Xu2”) in further view of US 2021/0297686 A1 (“Yang”).
Regarding claim 5, although Zhang discloses the method of decoding video data, it is noted Zhang differs from the present invention that it fails to particularly disclose wherein the method further comprises: determining that all IBC merge modes are disabled for a third block of video data; based on determining that all IBC merge modes are disabled for the third block, not decoding a third syntax element indicating a maximum number of IBC merge candidates for the third block; and setting a value of the third syntax element to a default integer number. Yang however, teaches wherein the method further comprises: determining that all IBC merge modes are disabled for a third block of video data (e.g. see general merge enabled flag, paragraphs [0157]-[0158]); based on determining that all IBC merge modes are disabled for the third block, not decoding a third syntax element indicating a maximum number of IBC merge candidates for the third block (e.g. see maximum index, paragraphs [0168]-[0170]); and setting a value of the third syntax element to a default integer number (e.g. see inferred value, paragraphs [0168]-[0170]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Zhang, Lai, Xu2 and Yang before him/her, to incorporate the teachings of Yang into the Method, apparatus, and medium for video processing of Zhang as modified by Lai and Xu2 in order to efficiently use flags and indices to prevent the number of bits from increasing too much to increase coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 23, the claim recites analogous limitations to the claim above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu2.
Regarding claim 39, Xu2 discloses a device for decoding video data, the device comprising: one or more memories configured to store the video data; and one or more processors implemented in circuitry and coupled to the one or more memories (e.g. see computer system in Fig. 13 including storage devices and processing units), the one or more processors being configured to: determine that intra block copy (IBC) regular merge mode is disabled for a block of video data (e.g. see sps_ibc_enabled_flag in Table 4, paragraphs [0127]-[0130]); based on determining that IBC regular merge mode is disabled for the block, not decode a syntax element indicating a maximum number of IBC merge candidates for the block (e.g. see if sps_ibc_enabled_flag is not true, max_num_merge_cand_minus_max_num_ibc_cand in Table 4 that specifies the maximum number of IBC merge mode candidates would not be coded/decoded, paragraphs [0127]-[0130]); based on determining that IBC regular merge mode is disabled for the block, set a value of the syntax element to a default integer number (e.g. see when MaxNumIBCMergeCand is equal to 0, IBC merge mode is not allowed (i.e. sps_ibc_enabled_flag is not true), paragraphs [0127]-[0130]; a person having ordinary skill in the art would have no difficulty recognizing that MaxNumIBCMergeCand equal to zero is equivalent to setting max_num_merge_cand_minus_max_num_ibc_cand = MaxNumMergeCand in the equation in paragraph [0129] if sps_ibc_enabled_flag is not true); and decode the block based on the value of the syntax element (e.g. see decoder, e.g. see video decoder 710 in Fig. 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 19 and 38-39 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0228824 A1, Xu et al., Method and apparatus for block vector prediction with integer offsets in intra picture block compensation
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 FRANCIS G GEROLEO whose telephone number is (571)270-7206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 3:30 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, Anita Y Coupe can be reached on (571) 270-3614. 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.
/Francis Geroleo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619