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 August 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Xu fails to teach “reordering or refining the BV candidate list based on a predetermined criterion (Remarks of August 11, 2025, page 11). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner argues that the conditions for using the offset vectors to generate BV candidates is consistent with the claim language. As shown, in paragraph 134, the offset vectors generate BV candidates that are added to the list, when the candidate list is not full (i.e. predetermined criterion). Further, Xu discloses a pruning and reordering process, in paragraph 139, when the processing the candidate list and discovering non-valid vectors (i.e., a predetermined criterion). Thus, the examiner argues that a final official correspondence is appropriate because Xu anticipates the claimed invention.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 3 and 16 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al (US 2020/0236366, hereafter Xu).
As per claim 1, Xu discloses a method for video processing, comprising:
determining, during a conversion between a target video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, whether a block vector (BV) candidate of the target video block is valid; in accordance with a determination that the BV candidate is valid, adding the BV candidate in a BV candidate list, the target video block being coded in an intra block copy (IBC) mode; performing the conversion based on the IBC candidate list (¶ 110 - 123);
reordering or refining the BV candidate list based on a predetermined criterion (¶ 136); and
performing the conversion based on the reordered or refined BV candidate list (¶ 136).
As per claim 2, Xu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the BV candidate list comprises at least one of the following:
an IBC merge candidate list, an IBC advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) candidate list (¶ 110 and 123), an IBC template matching candidate list, an intra template matching candidate list, an IBC merge mode with block vector difference (MBVD) candidate list, an IBC geometric partitioning mode (GPM) candidate list, an IBC triangle partition mode (TPM) candidate list, or a BV candidate list related to an IBC coded block (¶ 109 and 110).
As per claim 3, Xu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
wherein the BV candidate comprises at least one of: a BV searching point, or a BV predictor (¶ 110), wherein in a prediction mode using the IBC candidate list, prediction samples are derived from blocks of sample values of a same video region as determined by block vectors (¶ 109).
As per claim 16, Xu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the target video block into the bitstream (¶ 109; A displacement vector that indicates an offset between a current block and a reference block (also referred to as a prediction block) in the same picture is referred to as a block vector (BV) where the current block can be encoded/decoded based on the reference block.).
As per claim 17, Xu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the target video block from the bitstream (¶ 109; A displacement vector that indicates an offset between a current block and a reference block (also referred to as a prediction block) in the same picture is referred to as a block vector (BV) where the current block can be encoded/decoded based on the reference block.).
Regarding claim 18, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 20.
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Chen et al (US 2021/0250580, hereafter Chen).
As per claim 6, Xu discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Xu does not explicitly teach wherein reordering the BV candidate list comprises: reordering a set of BV candidates in the BV candidate list without grouping the set of BV candidates into subgroups, wherein the set of BV candidates comprises at least a partial of the BV candidate list, the set of BV candidates being selected from the BV candidate list based on coding information or signaling, or wherein the set of BV candidates comprises all candidates of the BV candidate list.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches wherein reordering the BV candidate list comprises: reordering a set of BV candidates in the BV candidate list without grouping the set of BV candidates into subgroups, wherein the set of BV candidates comprises at least a partial of the BV candidate list, the set of BV candidates being selected from the BV candidate list based on coding information or signaling, or wherein the set of BV candidates comprises all candidates of the BV candidate list (¶ 129 - 132).
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 Xu in view of Chen. The advantage is an improved video coding.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4, 5, and 7 - 15 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