DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment dated May 13, 2026. 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 Claims 4-16 have been withdrawn.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 1-3 and 18-20 have been fully considered.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments and amendments received May 13, 2026 have been fully considered.
With regard to 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to disclose (1) reordering IBC merge candidates in an IBC merge candidate list before selecting a merge candidate for use as a BV basis and (2) selecting at least one IBC merge candidate from the reordered IBC merge candidate list, wherein at least one MBVD candidate index is included in the bitstream to specify the selected IBC merge candidate. 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 No. 11,457,235 (“Lee”).
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);
[generating] IBC merge candidates in an IBC merge candidate list of the target video block (see ¶¶9, 101, 106-107, 109, describing the generation of merge candidates in a merge candidate list of the target video block and that such a list and its candidates may be used for IBC mode, i.e., be IBC merge candidates in an IBC merge candidate list);
selecting at least one IBC merge candidate from the [] IBC merge candidate list, wherein at least one MBVD candidate index is included in the bitstream to specify the at least one IBC merge candidate (see citations with respect to element above and ¶¶94-96, 103-104, 106, describing the selection of a merge candidate from the merge candidate list, which as detailed above may be an IBC merge candidate from an IBC merge candidate list, and that a candidate index of the selected candidate (an IBC with MMVD/block vector difference/block vector offset index, i.e., MBVD candidate index) is included in the bitstream to specify the selected merge candidate, i.e., at least one IBC merge candidate);
generating, in the IBC MBVD mode, a block vector (BV) based on the 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).
As detailed above, Xu discloses the use of an IBC merge motion vector candidate list and the signaling of an index to such a list in the bitstream in order to indicate a selected candidate (see citations above). Xu does not explicitly disclose, however, that such a list may be reordered.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses that it was known rearrange/reorder such lists before selection of a candidate, i.e.:
reordering [] merge candidates in an [] merge candidate list of the target video block;
selecting at least one [] merge candidate from the reordered [] merge candidate list … (see 20:29-31, 21:16-33, describing that it was known to rearrange/reorder the candidates in a merge candidate list for the current/target video block and select a merge candidate from the reordered list to be specified by a merge candidate index);
As detailed above, Xu combines IBC prediction with MMVD which uses a merge candidate list to select a candidate as a BV predictor for use in IBC prediction (see ¶¶94, 101, 103, 106-107, 1ating 09). 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). Xu describes evaluating these candidates to determine a best motion vector predictor (see ¶¶102-105), but does not detail every method by which this evaluation may occur. At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with the different methods for selecting the best motion vector predictor from a candidate list, including, as evidenced by Lee, by rearranging the list so that candidates with highest priority are given a smaller index (see citations above). Accordingly, to such a person, doing so in the IBC-MMVD motion vector predictor list of Xu, as taught by Lee, 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 reordering/rearranging the candidates of the current block’s merge candidate list and the selection of a candidate/motion vector predictor from this reordered/rearranged list in the predictive IBC MMVD coding system of Xu as taught by Lee.
With respect to claim 2, Xu discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Xu in view of Lee discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Xu/Lee additionally discloses:
wherein the BVD information comprises at least one of the following:
at least one MBVD merge candidate index,
at least one indication for at least one motion magnitude, wherein the at least one indication for at least one motion magnitude indicating at least one predefined offset,
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 3, Xu discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Xu in view of Lee discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Xu/Lee 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, or
wherein the BV is within a valid range of BV, and wherein BVD information for driving a BV out of the valid range is excluded from BVD information set to be selected or signaled (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 1 and 2 above and Xu ¶¶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).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 3.
With respect to claim 17, Xu discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Xu in view of Lee discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Xu/Lee 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 Xu 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 Lee discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Xu/Lee 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),
reordering IBC merge candidates in an IBC merge candidate list of the target video block (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
selecting at least one IBC merge candidate from the reordered IBC merge candidate list, wherein at least one MBVD candidate index is included in the bitstream to specify the at least one IBC merge candidate (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).
performing the conversion based on the refined BV (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. Xu 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 Xu ¶¶31, 32, 35, 50, 56, 60). Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claims 1 and 18 also apply to claim 20.
Conclusion
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