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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 13, 2026 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 14 – 16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 2024/0236351, hereafter Chen) in view of Bae et al (US 2023/0100650, hereafter Bae).
As per claim 1, Chen discloses a method of decoding video data, the method comprising:
determining an initial block vector predictor (BVP) for a current block of video data (¶ 124);
determining a set of valid block vector difference (BVD) values using a template size for the current block of video data (¶ 149), the valid BVD values being BVD values that, when added to the BVP, refer to a region of a picture that is entirely within a search area of the picture for the current block, the region including a reference block and a template for the reference block, the template having the template size and being used to perform template matching decoder-side block vector derivation for the current block (¶ 124, 130, 160);
selecting one of the valid BVD values as a final BVD for the current block (¶ 124);
adding the final BVD to the BVP for the current block to form a block vector (BV) for the current block (¶ 124 and 125);
generating a prediction block for the current block using the BV; and decoding the current block using the prediction block (¶ 120 - 124).
However, Chen does not explicitly teach wherein determining the set of valid BVD values includes: determining that at least one BVD value, when added to the BVP, refers to a region of the picture that is at least partially outside of the search area of the picture for the current block: and in response to the at least one BVD value, when added to the BVP, refers to the region of the picture that is at least partially outside of the search area of the picture for the current block, omitting the at least one BVD value from the set of valid BVD values as an invalid BVD value; determining that a second VBD value, when added to the BVP, refers to a second region of the picture that is entirely within the search area of the picture for the current block; and in response to the second BVD value, when added to the BVP, referring to the second region of the picture that is entirely within the search area of the picture for the current block, adding the second BVD value to the set of valid BVD values.
In the same field of endeavor, Kwon teaches wherein determining the set of valid BVD values includes: determining that at least one BVD value, when added to the BVP, refers to a region of the picture that is at least partially outside of the search area of the picture for the current block: and in response to the at least one BVD value, when added to the BVP, refers to the region of the picture that is at least partially outside of the search area of the picture for the current block, omitting the at least one BVD value from the set of valid BVD values as an invalid BVD value; determining that a second VBD value, when added to the BVP, refers to a second region of the picture that is entirely within the search area of the picture for the current block; and in response to the second BVD value, when added to the BVP, referring to the second region of the picture that is entirely within the search area of the picture for the current block, adding the second BVD value to the set of valid BVD values (¶ 146 and 147).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Chen in view of Bae. The advantage is improving video coding.
As per claim 2, Chen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the template comprises a first template and the template size comprises a first template size along a first dimension of the template, and wherein the region of the picture includes the reference block, the first template, and a second template having a second template size along a second dimension of the template, the second dimension being orthogonal to the first dimension (¶ 106 - 110).
As per claim 14, Chen discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising encoding the current block prior to decoding the current block (¶ 106 - 110).
Regarding claim 15, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 2 are applicable for claim 16.
As per claim 19, Chen discloses the device of claim 15, further comprising a display configured to display the decoded video data (¶ 36).
As per claim 20, Chen discloses the device of claim 15, wherein the device comprises one or more of a camera, a computer, a mobile device, a broadcast receiver device, or a set-top box (¶ 36).
Claim(s) 3 - 6, 7, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Bae (hereafter Chen) in further view of Deng et al (US 2025/0106387, hereafter Deng).
As per claim 3, Chen discloses the method of claim 2.
However, Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the first template size comprises a height of the template and the second template size comprises a width of the template.
In the same field of endeavor, Deng teaches wherein the first template size comprises a height of the template and the second template size comprises a width of the template (¶ 510, 513, and 689).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Chen in view of Deng. The advantage is improved video coding efficiency.
As per claim 4, Chen discloses the method of claim 2.
However, Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the first template is above the reference block and the second template is to the left of the reference block.
In the same field of endeavor, Deng teaches wherein the first template size comprises a height of the template and the second template size comprises a width of the template (¶ 510, 513, and 689).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Chen in view of Deng. The advantage is improved video coding efficiency.
As per claim 5, Chen discloses the method of claim 2.
However, Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the first template is below the reference block and the second template is to the right of the reference block.
In the same field of endeavor, Deng teaches wherein the first template is below the reference block and the second template is to the right of the reference block (Figure 14B and 14E).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Chen in view of Deng. The advantage is improved video coding efficiency.
As per claim 6, Chen discloses the method of claim 2.
However, Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the first template is above the reference block and the second template is to the right of the reference block.
In the same field of endeavor, Deng teaches wherein the first template is above the reference block and the second template is to the right of the reference block (Figure 14C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Chen in view of Deng. The advantage is improved video coding efficiency.
As per claim 7, Chen discloses the method of claim 2.
However, Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the first template is below the reference block and the second template is to the left of the reference block.
In the same field of endeavor, Deng teaches wherein the first template is below the reference block and the second template is to the left of the reference block (Figure 14G).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Chen in view of Deng. The advantage is improved video coding efficiency.
As per claim 8, Chen discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the template is above the reference block.
In the same field of endeavor, Deng teaches wherein the template is above the reference block (Figure 14A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Chen in view of Deng. The advantage is improved video coding efficiency.
As per claim 9, Chen discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the template is to the left of the reference block.
In the same field of endeavor, Deng teaches wherein the template is to the left of the reference block (Figure 14F).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Chen in view of Deng. The advantage is improved video coding efficiency.
As per claim 10, Chen discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the template is below the reference block.
In the same field of endeavor, Deng teaches wherein the template is below the reference block (Figure 14E and 14G).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Chen in view of Deng. The advantage is improved video coding efficiency.
As per claim 11, Chen discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the template is to the right of the reference block.
In the same field of endeavor, Deng teaches wherein the template is to the right of the reference block (Figure 14B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Chen in view of Deng. The advantage is improved video coding efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 12, 13, 17, and 18 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4:30 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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights