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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The examiner thanks the applicant for their careful consideration of the rejection. However, the applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8, 10-15 and 21-37 have are not persuasive.
As an initial matter the examiner notes that the independent claims, as amended simply require assigning either positive or negative sign values to the first and second BVDs simply based on the first or second BVP being the first or second BVP. Since the assignment of the sign value is not based upon the method of determining the BVPs the rejection has been updated to reflect the breadth of the sign assignment. However, an alternative rejection is also provided to for the previous interpretation of the limitations of prior claims 9 and 22. The examiner recommends clarifying that the sign values of the BVDs are assigned based on the BVP being determined based on a dimension of a current block, and a displacement form a location of a current block to a block boundary respectively.
In particular response to the applicants argument made on pgs. 9-10 of the Remarks filed 7/24/2026 in regard to the combination of Xu and Rapaka, the applicant asserts that the combination can only provide BVDs with at least one positive value as the adjusted BVPs along the left edge can only have an x BVD moving them to the right and the adjusted BVPs along the top edge can only have a y BVD moving them down. The examiner agrees. However, the BVP determination method related to Fig. 10 of Xu is used to generate the second BVP and as such being limited to only positive BVD values meets the limitation of the amended claim which requires that the sign of the BVD related to the second BVP is positive. The applicant seems to be arguing that BVP adjustment method of Fig. 10 of Xu must provide both the first and the second BVP. However, as is clarified in the updated rejection below the method of Fig. 11 of Xu is relied upon for providing the first BVP of the two BVPs of Choi and the method of Fig. 10 of Xu is relied upon for providing the second BVP of the two BVPs of Choi. Thus the applicants arguments are unpersuasive.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 in the reply filed on 7/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 28 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions that when executed implement a series of steps but does not explicitly indicate a device which executes the instructions. The claim further discloses a computing device that receives information. The computing device is interpreted as the device which executes the instructions stored on the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 28.
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 8 and 10-15 and 21-34 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)
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 sign of the BVD, wherein the determining the sign of the BVD comprises determining that:
the sign is negative if the BVP is the first BVP, or
the sign is positive if the BVP is the second BVP
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 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 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.
Claim 10 and 29: 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;
Claims 11 and 33: 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, 23 and 30: 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 15, 25 and 32: 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.
Claims 12 and 34 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 14, 24 and 31 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) 8-15 and 21-37 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) and alternatively in view of Rapaka et al (2015/0373370).
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 sign of the BVD, wherein the determining of the sign of the BVD comprises determining that:
the sign is negative if the BVP is the first BVP , or the sign is positive if the BVP is the second BVP (Choi par. 214 note that IBC MVP mode operates like normal MVP mode, further note par. 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, further note par. 202 the sign of the first BVP may be determined to be negative when a sign flag indicates the sign is negative and similarly the sign of the second BVD may be determined to be positive when signaled as positive by the flag );
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 BVP determination process as described in Fig 11 of Xu to the first BVP of Choi and apply a BVP determination process as described in Fig. 10 of Xu to the second BVP of Choi 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).
Choi discloses determining the sign of BVD’s as specific values as noted above. However assuming, arguendo, that the claim required the value of the BVD’s to be determined based on the method of determining the BVP. Rapaka discloses that the sign value of a BVD may be inferred based on the BVP value or the position of the BVP when the sign of the BVD would be restricted to a single value (Rapaka pars. 74 and 79). In the combination of Choi and Xu a first BVP is determined that points to a reference block located above or to the left of a constrained area outside of a current CTU (Xu Figs 11A-B and pars 134-145) because the reference block is prohibited from being within the constrained area. Thus the BVD, which modifies the BVP, may not alter the block vector to the right, or downward, or in the positive x and/or y direction respectively, to point to a new reference block, as such a block would be within the constrained area (note Figs. 17, 19 and 20 of the specification defining down as a positive y direction and right as a positive x direction). Therefore the BVD corresponding to the first BVP must have a negative sign value for at least one of the x or y directions, and it would be obvious to implicitly signal the sign of the x and/or y value of the BVD of Choi in view of XU to be a negative sign value as suggested by Rapaka (Rapaka par. 79) to reduce signaling overhead.
Similarly the combination of Choi and Xu discloses determining a second BVP that points to a reference block located below, or to the right of a boundary of a reference region indicating accessible memory locations (Xu Figs 10A-B and pars 122-133) because the reference block is prohibited from being outside of the accessible memory area. Thus the BVD, which modifies the BVP, may not alter the block vector to the left, and/or upward or in the negative x and/or y direction respectively, to point to a new reference block, as such a block would be within an inaccessible memory location (note Figs. 17, 19 and 20 of the specification defining down as a positive y direction and right as a positive x direction). Therefore the BVD corresponding to the second BVP must have a positive sign value for at least one of the x or y directions, and it would be obvious to implicitly signal the sign of the x and/or y value of the BVD of Choi in view of XU to be a positive sign value as suggested by Rapaka (Rapaka par. 79) to reduce signaling overhead.
In regard to claim 10 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 8 above. Choi further discloses assigning the 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 claim 12 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 8 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 13 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 8 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 14 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 8 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 15 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 8 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 35 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Choi further discloses that determining the sign of the BVD based on the first BVP or the second BVP is further based on the BV comprising a null component and a non-null component (Choi pars 200-202 and and Fig. 16 note that the MVD sign information mvd_sign_flag is only included for each of the x and y components if the absolute value of the component is greater than 0 as indicated by the ‘if’ statements in Fig. 16)
In regard to claims 21-34 and 36-37 refer to the statements made in regard to claims 8-15 above the details of which will not be repeated here for brevity. In particular regard to claims 21 and 18, 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).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights