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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Lee does not teach obtaining one or more affine candidates from a plurality of non-adjacent neighbor blocks (Remarks of May 12, 2026, page 8). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee discloses deriving merge candidates and uses a coding block CU3 as an example in Figure 24. In the example of Figure 24(b), x2 would be a non-adjacent neighboring block to block CU3 (¶ 283 - 285).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9 – 11, 16, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2025/0047889, hereafter Lee).
As per claim 1, Lee discloses a method of video coding, comprising: obtaining one or more affine candidates from a plurality of non-adjacent neighbor blocks that are non-adjacent to a current block; and obtaining one or more control point motion vectors (CPMVs) for the current block based on the one or more affine candidates (¶ 146, 156, and 158),
wherein obtaining one or more affine candidates comprises: obtaining the one or more affine candidates according to a scanning rule, determining the scanning rule based on at least one scanning area, at least one scanning distance, and a scanning order (¶ 283 - 285).
As per claim 4, Lee discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising: determining the at least one scanning area according to the at least one scanning distance (¶ 283 and 285).
As per claim 9, Lee discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising:
scanning from a first starting non-adjacent neighbor block along a scanning line parallel with a left side of the current block, wherein the first starting non-adjacent block is a bottom block in a first scanning area, and blocks in the first scanning area are at a first scanning distance away from the left side of the current block (¶ 283 and 285).
As per claim 10, Lee discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising:
scanning from a third starting non-adjacent neighbor block along a scanning line parallel with an upper side of the current block, wherein the third starting non-adjacent block is a right block in a first scanning area, blocks in the first scanning area are at a first scanning distance away from the upper side of the current block ( ¶156, 158, and 283).
As per claim 11, Lee discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising:
locating a non-adjacent neighbor block at a scanning position (¶ 283 and 285).
As per claim 16, Lee discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more affine candidates comprises one or more affine inherited candidates and one or more affine constructed candidates, and the method further comprises: obtaining the one or more affine inherited candidates according to a first scanning rule; and obtaining the one or more affine constructed candidates according to a second scanning rule, wherein the second scanning rule is completely or partially same as the first scanning rule (¶ 283 and 285).
As per claim 17, Lee discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising: determining the second scanning rule based on at least one second scanning area, at least one second scanning distance, and a second scanning order; and scanning the at least one second scanning area at each distance equaling to a block size same as the current block (¶ 283 and 285).
Regarding claim 19, arguments analogous to those presented for clam 1 are applicable for claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, arguments analogous to those presented for clam 1 are applicable for claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5 – 8, 12 – 15 and 18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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