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 with respect to claim(s) 1-15 and 21-25have been considered but are moot because they are directed to the newly amended limitations requiring a BVP candidate list comprising two candidates for which new art Choi is provided.
In particular response to the applicants argument made on pg. 7 of the Remarks filed 11/12/2025 in regard to Xu’s failure to disclose determining a second BVP based on a displacement. The applicant argues in regard to Xu’s BVP modification for a reference block found within the constrained reference region. However Xu discloses two methods of determining a BVP from an initial BVP that is in an inaccessible memory area. As noted by the applicant one method, shown in Fig. 11, is used when a reference block is in a constrained area near to a current block within a current CU, in which case a second reference block is selected outside of a current CU. The location of the second reference block being based on the width, and/or heigh of the current CU. This method is relied upon in the rejection below for meeting the limitations of the claimed ‘first BVP’ which is based on a dimension of the current block.
Xu also discloses a second method, in Fig. 10, for determining a BVP from an initial BVP that points to a reference block located far away from a current block and outside of an allowed reference area. The second method determines a new reference block by locating location on a boundary of a reference region displaced from the location of the current block in the same direction as the initial BVP. For example, Fig. 10 of Xu shows an initial reference block 1011 which is outside of an allowed reference area. A new reference block, 1002, is selected that lies on the boundary of the reference area and is displaced from the current block in a same direction and a BVP pointing to this block is used to replace the initial BVP. This method is relied upon in the rejection below for meeting the limitations of the claimed ‘second BVP’ which is based on a displacement from a current block to a boundary of a reference region.
The applicants remaining arguments relate to claim limitations for which new reference Choi is relied upon.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 in the reply filed on 7/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 8-15 and 21-25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-7, 9, 11-12 and 14 of copending Application No. 18/504,455 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are encompassed by the disclosure of the and the reference application:
Instant application
Reference Application (18/504,455)
Claim 1: … selecting, by a computing device, a block vector predictor (BVP) from among:
a first BVP determined based on dimension of a current block of content; and
a second BVP determined based on a displacement from a location of the current block to boundary of reference region;
based on a difference between a BV associated with a reference block and the BVP, determining a magnitude of a block vector difference (BVD); and
sending an indication of the BVP and an indication of the magnitude of the BVD.
Claim 9: … selecting, by a computing device and based on… a block vector predictor (BVP) from among:
a first BVP determined based on a dimension of a current block; and
a second BVP determined based on a displacement from a location of the current block to a boundary of a reference region;
based on a difference between the BV and the BVP, determining a magnitude of a block vector difference (BVD); and
sending an indication of the BVP, an indication that the BV comprises the null component, and an indication of the magnitude of the BVD.
Claims 3: wherein the BV comprises a null vertical component or a null horizontal component.
Claim 11: wherein the BV comprises a null vertical component or a null horizontal component.
Claims 5, 15 and 25: wherein the boundary of the reference region comprises:
a top-most boundary of the reference region above the current block, or
a left-most boundary of the reference region left of the current block.
Claim 12: wherein the displacement from the location of the current block indicates:
a position at a top-most boundary of the reference region above the current block, or
a position at a left-most boundary of the reference region left of the current block.
Claim 6: sending a residual associated with the current block, wherein the residual is based on a difference between the current block and the reference block.
Claim 14: sending a residual associated with the current block, wherein the residual is based on a difference between the current block and the reference block.
Claims 8 and 21: receiving, by a computing device, an indication of a magnitude of a block vector difference (BVD) and an indication of a block vector predictor (BVP), wherein the BVP comprises one of:
a first BVP determined based on a dimension of a current block; and
a second BVP determined based on a displacement from a location of the current block to a boundary of a reference region;
determining a block vector (BV) based on the BVP, the magnitude of the BVD, and a
sign of the BVD; and
decoding the current block based on a reference block, in the reference region, that is displaced, from the current block, by the BV.
Claim 1: receiving:
… an indication of a magnitude of a component of a block vector difference (BVD) associated with a current block;
and an indication of block vector predictor (BVP); determining a sign of the component of the BVD based on: the BVP; and the indication that the BV comprises the null component; determining the BV based on: the BVP; the sign of the component of the BVD; and the magnitude of the component of the BVD; and decoding the current block based on a reference block that is displaced from the current block by the BV.
Claim 6: determining, based on the indication that the BV comprises the null component, a list of BVPs comprising:
a first BVP determined based on a dimension of the current block; and
a second BVP determined based on a displacement from a location of the current block to a boundary of a reference region.
Claims 9 and 22: determining a sign of the BVD, wherein the determining the sign of the BVD comprises: determining, based on the BVP being the first BVP, that the sign is negative, or determining, based on the BVP being the second BVP, that the sign is positive.
Claim 7: determining the sign of the component of the BVD based on the BVP comprises: determining the sign of the component of the BVD to be negative based on the BVP being a first BVP in a list of BVPs; or determining the sign of the component of the BVD to be positive based on the BVP being a second BVP in the list of BVPs.
Claim 10: determining the BV further comprises assigning a sign to a non-null component of the BVD.
Claim 1: … an indication that a block vector (BV) comprises a null component …. determining the BV based on: … the sign of the component of the BVD;
Claim 11: determining the BV further comprises determining a non-null component of the BV by combining a non-null component of the BVP and a non-null component of the BVD.
Claim 1: … determining the BV based on: the BVP; … and the magnitude of the component of the BVD;
Claims 13 and 23: wherein the BV comprises a null vertical component or a null horizontal component.
Claim 1: … an indication that a block vector (BV) comprises a null component
Claims 2 and 12 of the instant application recite a BVD magnitude that is the absolute value of a non-null component. Claims 1 and 9 of the reference application describe a BVD magnitude but do not specify that the magnitude is an absolute value. However the reference application clarifies in par. 174 of the pre-grand publication that the meaning of the term “magnitude” in regard to a BVD is represented in absolute value form.
Claims 4, 14 and 24 of the instant application recite that the dimension of the current block used to determine a BVP is a height or a width of the current block. Claims 6 and 9 of the reference application describe dimension but do not specify width or height. However the reference application clarifies in par. 266 of the pre-grant publication that the dimension used to determine the BVP is the width or height of the current block.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) fill in are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over choi et al (2022/0272338) in view of Xu et al (2020/0021835).
In regard to claim 1 Choi discloses a method (Choi Generally Figs. 14-18 and pars 204-238) comprising:
selecting, by a computing device, a block vector predictor (BVP) (Choi Fig. 2 pars. 92-110 and par. 214 note flag used to indicate a selected block vector predictor) from a list of candidate BVPs comprising:
a first BVP (Choi par. 214 note two candidates used in IBC MVP mode) ; and
a second BVP (Choi par. 214 note two candidates used in IBC MVP mode);
based on a difference between a BV associated with a reference block and the BVP, determining a magnitude of a block vector difference (BVD) (Choi note block vector difference value computed similar to MVP mode, further note par. 164 difference values are obtained between a base vector and a predictor in MVP mode); and
sending an indication of the BVP and an indication of the magnitude of the BVD (Choi par. 214 note encoding a block vector difference and a flag specifying an indicated block vector predictor).
It is noted that Choi does not disclose details of determining a BVP based on a dimension of a current block of content, or determining a BVP based on a displacement from a location of the current block to boundary of reference region. However Xu discloses that BVPs may be limited based on whether or not memory is accessible. Xu first discloses determining a first BVP based on a dimension of a block in a case that an initial BVP refers to a memory area close to the current block that is inaccessible (Xu Fig. 11 and pars 135-147 note par. 136 determining that a reference block pointed to by a block vector predictor is within a constrained reference area and pars. 138-139 determining a new BVP pointing to a second reference block based on the width or height of the current block). Second, Xu discloses determining a second BVP based on a displacement form a location of the current block to a boundary of a reference region in a case that an initial BVP refers to a memory area outside of an allowed reference area (Xu Fig. 10 and pars 122-133 note pars 124-125 initial block vector predictors 1012 and 1022 point to reference blocks outside of the allowed reference area, and new block vector predictors are determined by clipping the BVPs to a displacement from the current block along the boundary of the allowed reference area closest to the initial reference block).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the advantage of incorporating the memory access based BVP determination techniques of Xu to apply to the first and second BVPs in the IBC MVP mode of Choi in order to gain the advantage of providing usable BVPs as suggested by Xu (Xu pars 23 and 26 note determining BVPs pointing to valid reference blocks based on BVPs pointing to unusable reference blocks).
In regard to claim 2 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Choi further discloses that the indication of the magnitude of the BVD comprises an absolute value of a non-null component of the BVD (Choi par. 214 note IBC MVP mode operates like normal MVP mode, also note block vector difference used in IBC MVP mode, finally note par. 200 motion vector difference (MVD) used in normal MVP mode may include absolute value and sign, hence the BVD may include absolute value and sign).
In regard to claim 3 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Xu discloses that block vectors may have any allowed combination of horizontal and vertical values in the allowed reference region above and to the left of the current block (Xu Fig. 10 and pars. 125-125 note various block vectors, also note par. 132 note block vector may have generic values of (x, y) coordinates). Although not explicitly shown as an example block vector, Fig. 10 of Xu indicates that this region inherently includes block vector values pointing to reference blocks directly above and directly to the left of the current block which will have block vectors consisting of a null horizontal or vertical component and a non-null vertical or horizontal component respectively e.g. the block vectors (0,y) within the allowed range of y values, and (x,0) within the allowed range of x values.
In regard to claim 4 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Xu further discloses that the dimension of the current block is a height of the current block or a width of the current block (Xu par. 156 not determining a second BVP based on block size, further note par. 89 size represents height and width).
In regard to claim 5 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Xu further discloses that the boundary of the reference region comprises (Xu Figs. 9-10 and pars 113-127 note par. 113 the allowed reference area is limited to a current CTU, further note Fig. 10 showing a current CTU):
a top-most boundary of the reference region above the current block (Xu Fig. 9C note boundary of the reference region is the top edge of blocks 901-902, Fig. 10 the boundary of the reference region boundary is the top edge of CTU 1000) ,
a left-most boundary of the reference region left of the current block (Xu Fig. 9C note left boundary of the reference region is the left edge of block 914, Fig. 10 the boundary of the reference region is the left edge of CTU 1000).
In regard to claim 6 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Xu further discloses sending a residual associated with the current block, wherein the residual is based on a difference between the current block and the reference block (Xu Fig. 6 and pars 95-96 note encoding a residual when performing intra and intra coding coding).
In regard to claim 7 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Xu further discloses that the BVP comprises a null component and a non-null component, wherein the non-null component of the BVP is in a same direction as a non-null component of a BV (Xu par. 155 note when a BVP is outside the reference area the BVP may be modified to replace the horizontal or vertical component of the vector that is outside of the boundary with a null component while maintaining the other component as a non-null component, further note Fig. 10 the BV may have non-null components in one or both of the horizontal and vertical directions).
In regard to claim 8 Choi discloses a method comprising:
receiving by a computing device, an indication of a magnitude of a BVD and an indication of a BVP (Choi Fig. 3 pars 111-127 and par. 214 note block vector difference is included in a coded bitstream, also note a flag used to indicate a selected block vector predictor, also note that IBC MVP mode operates like normal MVP mode, also note block vector difference used in IBC MVP mode, finally note par. 200 motion vector difference (MVD) used in normal MVP mode may include absolute value and sign, hence the BVD may include absolute value and sign) wherein the BVP is from a list of candidate BVPs comprising:
a first BVP (Choi par. 214 note two candidates used in IBC MVP mode) ; and
a second BVP (Choi par. 214 note two candidates used in IBC MVP mode);
determining a block vector based on the BVP , the magnitude of the BVD and a sign of the BVD; and (Choi par. 214 note that IBC MVP mode operates like normal MVP mode, further note par. 176 and 200 MVD sign and magnitude information in normal MVP mode is used to determine a motion vector hence a block vector maybe be determined using a BVP and sign and magnitude information of a BVD).
decoding the current block based on a reference block in the reference region, that is displaced from the current block by the BV (Choi par. 214 note that IBC MVP mode operates like normal MVP mode, further note par. 177 decoding a current block based on a displaced reference block using normal MVP mode, similar decoding occurs in the IBC MVP mode).
It is noted that Choi does not disclose details of determining a BVP based on a dimension of a current block of content, or determining a BVP based on a displacement from a location of the current block to boundary of reference region. However Xu discloses that BVPs may be limited based on whether or not memory is accessible. Xu first discloses determining a first BVP based on a dimension of a block in a case that an initial BVP refers to a memory area close to the current block that is inaccessible (Xu Fig. 11 and pars 135-147 note par. 136 determining that a reference block pointed to by a block vector predictor is within a constrained reference area and pars. 138-139 determining a new BVP pointing to a second reference block based on the width or height of the current block). Second, Xu discloses determining a second BVP based on a displacement form a location of the current block to a boundary of a reference region in a case that an initial BVP refers to a memory area outside of an allowed reference area (Xu Fig. 10 and pars 122-133 note pars 124-125 initial block vector predictors 1012 and 1022 point to reference blocks outside of the allowed reference area, and new block vector predictors are determined by clipping the BVPs to a displacement from the current block along the boundary of the allowed reference area closest to the initial reference block).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the advantage of incorporating the memory access based BVP determination techniques of Xu to apply to the first and second BVPs in the IBC MVP mode of Choi in order to gain the advantage of providing usable BVPs as suggested by Xu (Xu pars 23 and 26 note determining BVPs pointing to valid reference blocks based on BVPs pointing to unusable reference blocks).
In regard to claim 10 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 8 above. Choi further discloses assigning a sign to the non-null component of the BVD (Choi par. 214 note that IBC MVP mode operates like normal MVP mode also note par. 200 motion vector difference (MVD) used in normal MVP mode may a sign value , hence the BVD may include a sign value).
In regard to claim 11 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 8 above. Choi further discloses determining a non-null component of the BV by combining a non-null component of the BVP and a non-null component of the BVD (Choi par. 214 note that IBC MVP mode operates like normal MVP mode also note par. 176 note deriving a motion vector by combining the MVP and MVD, hence the block vector may be derived by combining the BVP and the BVD).
In regard to claims 12-15 and 21 and 23-25 refer to the statements made in regard to claims 2-5 and 8 above the details of which will not be repeated here for brevity. In particular regard to claim 21, Choi further discloses a computer readable medium storing instructions to be executed by a processor (Choi pars. 372-373 note various hardware and software implementations, further note par. 105 various computer readable media).
Claim(s) 9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Xu and in further in view of Rapaka et al (2015/0373370).
In regard to claims 9 and 22 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claims 8 and 21 above. Xu further discloses determining a BVP by selecting a default BVP corresponding to reference block (Xu Fig. 11A-B, pars 136-150 and par. 156, note selecting a RB from among default locations, also note vectors pointing to the selected RBs). It is noted that neither Choi nor Xu does disclose details of determining the sign of the vector based on the BVP type.
However Rapaka discloses that the sign value of a BVD may be inferred based on the type of BVP used, where the characteristics of the BVP are such that only one sign value is possible for the particular BVD (Rapaka par. 74). Rapaka further discloses selecting a default reference block that is the rightmost of an allowed area such that the BVD is determined as negative (Rapaka par. 77).
Alternatively, Rapaka further discloses determining the sign value of a BVD to be positive based on the type being regular BVP (Rapaka pars 72 and 101, note when a sign value cannot be inferred both sign values are explicitly signaled which includes both positive and negative sign values of BVD when for non-default BVPs are used)
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of determining the sign value of the BVD in Choi in view of Xu based on the type of BVP used as taught by Rapaka in order to gain the advantage of increased compression efficiency by implicitly deriving the sign information without signaling as suggested by Rapaka (Rapaka par. 74 note not signaling the sign value of a BVD component).
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 JEREMIAH CHARLES HALLENBECK-HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-5248. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at (571)272-3922. 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.
/JEREMIAH C HALLENBECK-HUBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481