DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment dated November 14, 2025. Claims 1-3 and 17-20 are pending and are examined. Claims 4-16 have been withdrawn.
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 Amendment
The amendments made to original claims 1-13 have been fully considered.
In light of these amendments, the previous double patenting rejection is withdrawn.
In light of these amendment, the previous rejection of claim 20 as anticipated by Lou is withdrawn.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments and amendments received March 3, 2015 have been fully considered.
With regard to 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that Lee fails to disclose that the BV is within a valid range of BVD and BVD information for driving a BV out of the valid range of BV is excluded from BV information set to be selected or signaled. This language corresponds to the newly amended language of claims 1 and 18-20.
As such, these have been considered but they are directed to newly amended language, which is addressed below. See the rejection below for how the art on record in view of a newly added reference reads on the newly amended language as well as the examiner's interpretation of the cited art in view of the presented claim set.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0228824 (“Xu”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0385464 (“Xu 2”).
With respect to claim 1, Xu discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including
A method for video processing, comprising:
determining, during a conversion between a target video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, an intra block copy (IBC)-based mode to be applied for the target video block, the IBC-based mode being based on an IBC merge mode with block vector difference (MBVD) (see Abstract, Fig. 13, items 1306-1308, ¶¶10-12, 94, 99, 107, 109, 117, 137, describing that during encoding/decoding, i.e., during a conversion between a target video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, an intra block copy (IBC)-based mode may be applied to the current/target video block and that this IBC-based mode is based on intra block copy, i.e., an IBC merge mode, with offsets to a base block vector predictor, i.e., with a block vector difference); and
generating, in the IBC MBVD mode, a block vector (BV) based on at least one IBC merge candidate (see ¶¶88-89, 94-99, 106-108, 117, describing that in the IBC with MMVD mode, a base block vector/block vector (BV) predictor, i.e., block vector, may be an IBC merge candidate);
refining the BV based on block vector difference (BVD) information (see citations above including ¶¶94-99, describing that the base block vector/block vector (BV) predictor/starting point candidate is refined by adding to the starting point candidate, an offset including distance and direction, i.e., block vector difference (BVD) information); and
performing the conversion based on the refined BV (see citations with respect to claim element above, describing that the encoding/decoding is based on refined BV – IBC base BV predictor with offset);
…
Xu does not explicitly describe its offset to the base block vector as a “block vector difference” or BVD, however, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have understood BVDs to be offsets from a predicted/initial/starting block vector used to obtain the block vector (see, e.g., Applicant’s Specification at ¶¶120-121, 130-131, 133, 210, which describes that the BVD may be based on an offset from a starting point/starting BV). Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, it would have been obvious and merely a matter of terminology to have renamed Lee’s offset to the base block vector as a block vector difference, i.e., BVD and its IBC merge mode with offset as IBC merge mode with block vector difference (MBVD).
Xu does not explicitly disclose wherein the BV is within a valid range of BV, and wherein BVD information for driving a BV out of the valid range of BV is excluded from BVD information set to be selected or signaled.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Xu 2 discloses that it was known to constrain the BV to a range by excluding BVDs that drive the BV out of range, i.e.:
wherein the BV is within a valid range of BV, and wherein BVD information for driving a BV out of the valid range of BV is excluded from BVD information set to be selected or signaled (see ¶¶24, 123-124, 126, describing that it was known to, constrain the block vector to a valid region, i.e., the BV is within a valid range of BV, and if the block vector predictor plus difference points to a location outside the valid region/reference area boundary, 1) clip or 2) modify the resolution of the difference to ensure the block vector (predictor plus difference) is valid, i.e., BVD information for driving a BV out of a valid range is excluded from the BVD information to be selected/signaled and instead a modified BVD/difference is selected/signaled)
Xu 2 discloses the benefits of such BVD modification in order to ensure the BV is within a boundary (see citations above, describing, for example, that without doing so, a BVD may result in a BV that points outside a picture boundary). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with signaling BVPs/BVDs to indicate a BV for motion compensation and of the need for such BVs to point to valid information, e.g., information inside the picture boundary. Accordingly, such a person would have understood that, as evidenced by Xu 2, in order to ensure a BV points to reference information that is valid, e.g., information inside a picture boundary, a mechanism for excluding BVD values that would drive a BV out of valid range in lieu of modified BVD values would have been beneficial. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to include such a mechanism, as taught by Xu 2, in the prediction system of Xu in order to obtain this advantage. Moreover, to such a person, doing so would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a mechanism for excluding BVD values that would drive a BV out of valid range in lieu of modified BVD values in the predictive IBC MMVD coding system of Xu as taught by Xu 2.
With respect to claim 2, Xu discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Xu in view of Xu 2 discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Xu/Xu 2 additionally discloses:
wherein the BVD information comprises at least one of the following: at least one IBC merge candidate index, at least one indication for at least one motion magnitude, at least one indication for at least one motion direction (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above, including Xu ¶¶94-99, describing that the BVD information may include a base candidate/IBC merge candidate index, a distance index indicating offset magnitude, i.e., an indication for at least one motion magnitude, and an offset direction index, i.e., an indication for at least one motion direction).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 2.
With respect to claim 17, Xu discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Xu in view of Xu 2 discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Xu/Xu 2 additionally discloses:
wherein the conversion includes encoding the target video block into the bitstream, or
wherein the conversion includes decoding the target video block from the bitstream (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above and Title, Abstract, describing that the conversion may include encoding/decoding the target video block into the bitstream).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 17.
With respect to claim 18, Xu discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Xu in view of Xu 2 discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Xu/Xu 2 additionally discloses:
An apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon (see Figs. 3-7, 14, ¶¶32-35, 87, 118-125, 130-132, describing that the encoder/decoder may be embodied in software/computer program instructions stored on a computer-readable storage medium and executed by computer components, i.e., a processor), wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising:
determining, during a conversion between a target video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, an intra block copy (IBC)-based mode to be applied for the target video block, the IBC-based mode being based on an IBC merge mode with block vector difference (MBVD) (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
generating, in the IBC MBVD mode, a block vector (BV) based on at least one IBC merge candidate (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above);
refining the BV based on block vector difference (BVD) information (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above); and
performing the conversion based on the refined BV (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
wherein the BV is within a valid range of BV, and wherein BVD information for driving a BV out of the valid range of BV is excluded from BVD information set to be selected or signaled (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 18.
With respect to claim 19, claim 19 recites the elements of claim 18 in non-transitory computer-readable medium form instead of apparatus form. Lee discloses that its apparatus may be embodied by a computer-readable medium storing instructions executed by computer components (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 18 above). Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claims 1 and 18 also apply to claim 19.
With respect to claim 20, claim 20 recites the elements of claim 18 as a method for storing a bitstream. Xu discloses that its coding method may include the storage of encoded data in a recording medium (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 18 above and ¶¶31, 32, 35, 50, 56, 60). Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claims 1 and 18 also apply to claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Xu 2 and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0404287 (“Xu 3”).
With respect to claim 3, Xu discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Xu in view of Xu 2 discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Xu/Xu 2 additionally discloses:
wherein generating the BV comprises:
in accordance with a determination that a BV derived from the BVD information is out of a valid range of BV, applying a clipping process to the BV out of the valid range, to obtain a BV within the valid range, or
generating the BV according to a bitstream conformance constraint, the bitstream conformance constraint specifying the BV to be within a valid range of BV,
wherein the method further comprises:
selecting the at least one IBC merge candidate from an IBC merge candidate list, and
wherein at least one MBVD candidate index is included in the bitstream to specify the at least one selected IBC merge candidate,
wherein a MBVD candidate index is included in the bitstream to specify a selected IBC merge candidate among a [] number of IBC merge candidates in the IBC merge candidate list (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 1 and 2 above and ¶¶96, 101-106, describing that when the BV derived from the BVD information is out of range, the BVD may be clipped to obtain a BV within the valid range and/or the resolution, i.e., a bitstream conformance constraint, may be changed, and that the method also include the selection of an IBC merge candidate from a merge candidate list, the inclusion of an index specifying such a merge candidate from among a number of candidates in the list).
Xu/Xu 2 does not explicitly state that a predetermined number of IBC merge candidates are included in the IBC merge candidate list.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Xu 3 discloses that it was known for the IBC merge candidate list to include a predetermined number of IBC merge candidates, i.e., a first predetermined number of IBC merge candidates in the IBC merge candidate list (see ¶¶135-138, describing MaxNumMergeCand, a predetermined maximum number of IBC merge candidates in the IBC merge candidate list).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with merge candidate lists, including IBC merge candidate lists, and with limiting the number of candidates that may be included in such list. Such a person would also have understood that without such a limit, a potentially infinite number of candidates could be used, resulting in infinite numbers of candidates to search, and increasing processing time. Accordingly, such a person would have understood that, would have been motivated to include a limited predetermined number of IBC merge candidates in the merge candidate list, as taught by Xu 3, in the prediction system of Xu/Xu 2 in order to obtain this advantage. Moreover, to such a person, doing so would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a limited predetermined number of IBC merge candidates in the merge candidate list in the predictive IBC MMVD coding system of Xu/XU 2 as taught by Xu 3.
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 LINDSAY JANE KILE UHL whose telephone number is (571)270-0337. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 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, William Vaughn can be reached on (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.
LINDSAY J UHL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481
/LINDSAY J UHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights