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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 27, 2026 has been entered.
Applicant(s) Response to Official Action
The response filed on May 27, 2026 has been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 4, 12, 18 - 20 have been amended. Claims 1 and 3 – 20 are currently pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on May 27, 2026 and June 11, 2026. The submission filed on June 11, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
However, the submission filed on May 27, 2026, the Examiner notes that NPL entry 2 contain a citation of a reference that do not comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.98(b)(5) which requires "Each publication listed in an information disclosure statement must be identified by publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date, and place of publication." The Examiner is unable to timely consider the various coding standards and working drafts of said coding standard in their entirety as they comprise hundreds of pages. The Examiner encourages resubmission with the pertinent portions of these references pointed out. Accordingly, the references have been placed on the record, but have not been considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see pages 6 – 8 with respect to the rejection of Claims 1 - 9 and 15 - 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu et al (US 2016/0330471 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the newly discovered reference to wherein the second reference area is separate from the video unit, as claimed in the amended Claims 1, 18 ,19 and 20. Examiner’s response to the presented arguments follows below:
It should be noted that Applicant states on page 7 that “the relationship between the first reference area and the second reference area is not that of the prediction block to the current block (which is disclosed by Zhu)”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the first reference area and the second reference area is not that of the prediction block to the current block) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 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.
Claims 1, 3 - 9 and 15 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (US 2016/0330471 A1) referred to as Zhu hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 1, Zhu discloses a method of video processing (Par. [0108] A. Intra BC Prediction Mode, BV Values and BV Prediction), comprising:
determining, during a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video (Par. [0109] For intra BC prediction, the sample values of a current block (i.e. video unit) of a picture are predicted using sample values in the same picture. A BV value indicates a displacement from the current block to a region of the picture that includes the sample values used for prediction. The sample values used for prediction are previously reconstructed sample values. The BV value can be signaled in the bitstream, and a decoder can use the BV value to determine the region of the picture to use for prediction, which is also reconstructed at the decoder), a first reference area for intra block copy (IBC) of the video unit based on a second reference area for intra template matching (Par. [0111] The BV (761) indicates a displacement (or offset) from the current block (760) (i.e. first reference area) to a region (762) (i.e. second reference area) of the picture that includes the sample values used for prediction), the video unit being applied with an IBC mode (Par. [0024], intra BC prediction (i.e. IBC mode) for a block (i.e. video unit) of a picture) wherein the second reference area is separate from the video unit (See Fig. 7a, region 762 (i.e. second reference area) is separate from region 760 the current block (i.e. video unit));
determining a block vector for the video unit in the first reference area (Par. [0111] The BV (761) (i.e. block vector) indicates a displacement (or offset) from the current block (760) (i.e. first reference area)); and
performing the conversion based on the block vector (Par. [0113] For BV prediction, the BV value for the given block is predicted using a BV predictor. The difference (or BV differential) between the BV value for the given block and the BV predictor is then entropy coded).
Regarding Claim 2, it has been cancelled.
Regarding Claim 3, Zhu discloses claim 1. Zhu further discloses wherein the second reference area for intra template matching is set corresponding to the first reference area for IBC (Par. [0111], The intra-frame prediction region (762) (i.e. second reference area) indicated by the BV (761) is sometimes termed the “matching block” for the current block (760) (i.e. first reference area). The matching block can be identical (i.e. template matching) to the current block (760)).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhu discloses claim 1. Zhu further discloses wherein a reference area for each IBC block is set to a maximum area including a set of template samples if the vide unit is coded in the intra template matching mode (Par. [0111], The intra-frame prediction region (762) indicated by the BV (761) is sometimes termed the “matching block” for the current block (760). The matching block can be identical (i.e. set maximum area) to the current block (760) of a current frame (710) (i.e. set of template samples)).
Regarding Claim 5, Zhu discloses claim 1. Zhu further discloses wherein the video unit has a first size parameter and a second size parameter (Par. [0121], the current block is a CB of a CU having width W (i.e. first size parameter) and height H (i.e. second size parameter)), the block vector has a first direction parameter (Par. [0121], the current block is a CB of a CU having the value of the horizontal BV component BVx (i.e. first direction parameter)) and a second direction parameter (Par. [0123], The value of the vertical BV component BVy (i.e. second direction parameter)), and if the first direction parameter is equal to a predetermined number, an unsigned integer which depends on the first size parameter represents the second direction parameter (Par. [0123], the default BV predictor is a vertical vector (0, BVy) (i.e. first direction parameter BVx is a predetermined number=0). The value of the vertical BV component BVy can be a fixed non-zero value, or the value of BVy can be the height of the current block, when the current block is a CB of a CU having width W and height H).
Regarding Claim 6, Zhu discloses claim 5. Zhu further discloses wherein if BVx is equal to 0, BVy is represented by coding the unsigned integer which depends on H (Par. [0123], the default BV predictor is a vertical vector (0, BVy) (i.e. BVx =0). The value of the vertical BV component BVy can be a fixed non-zero value, or the value of BVy can be the height (i.e. unsigned integer depends on H) of the current block, which is the smallest value of BVy that avoids overlap between the current block and the reference region).
Regarding Claim 7, Zhu discloses claim 6. Zhu further discloses wherein the unsigned integer is represented by h, wherein h≜ ((abs(BVy)) -H) , and BVy is reconstructed as -(h+H) (Par. [0123], when the current block is a CB of a CU having width W and height H, the default BV predictor can be (0, −H) (i.e. reconstructed as -H), where the value of BVy can be the height of the current block. Therefore, for example, if 4x4 block, then h≜ ((abs(4)) -4) = 0, then reconstructed as -(h+H) = -(0+4) = -4 which is the same as -H).
Regarding Claim 8, Zhu discloses claim 5. Zhu further discloses wherein if BVy is equal to 0, BVy is represented by coding the unsigned integer which depends on W (Par. [0123], the default BV predictor is a horizontal vector (BVx, 0) (i.e. BVy = 0). The value of the horizontal BV component BVx can be a fixed non-zero value. Or, the value of BVx can be the width (i.e. unsigned integer depends on W) of the current block, which is the smallest value of horizontal BV component BVx that avoids overlap between the current block and the reference region.).
Regarding Claim 9, Zhu discloses claim 8. Zhu further discloses wherein the unsigned integer is represented by w, wherein w≜ ((abs(BVx)) -W), and BVx is reconstructed as -(w+W) (Par. [0121], when the current block is a CB of a CU having width W and height H, the value of the horizontal BV component BVx for the default BV predictor can be a negative offset equal to the width W of the CU. That is, the default BV predictor can be (−W, 0) (i.e. reconstructed as -W), the value of BVx can be the width of the current block. Therefore, for example, if 4x4 block, then w≜ ((abs(4)) -4) = 0, then reconstructed as -(w+W) = -(0+4) = -4 which is the same as -W).
Regarding Claim 15, Zhu discloses claim 1. Zhu further discloses wherein in the IBC mode, prediction samples are derived from blocks of sample values of a same video region as determined by block vectors (Par. [0003], For intra BC prediction mode, the sample values of a current block of a picture are predicted using previously reconstructed sample values in the same picture. A block vector (“BV”) indicates a displacement from the current block to a region of the picture that includes the previously reconstructed sample values used for prediction Also Par. [0073]).
Regarding Claim 16, Zhu discloses claim 1. Zhu further discloses wherein the conversion includes encoding the video unit into the bitstream (Par. [0003], The BV is signaled in the bitstream).
Regarding Claim 17, Zhu discloses claim 1. Zhu further discloses wherein the conversion includes decoding the video unit from the bitstream (Par. [0013] A corresponding decoder receives from a bitstream an index value. The decoder determines a set of multiple BV predictor candidates for a current block of a picture and, based on the index value, selects one of the BV predictor candidates to use for the current block. The decoder decodes the current block (i.e. decoding the video unit) using the selected BV predictor candidate).
Apparatus claim 18 is drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claim 1. Therefore apparatus claim 18 corresponds to method claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above. Claim 18 further recites a processor and a non-transitory memory (See Zhu, Par. [0037], A processing unit can be a general-purpose central processing unit (“CPU”), processor in an application-specific integrated circuit (“ASIC”) or any other type of processor. The tangible memory (120, 125) may be volatile memory (e.g., registers, cache, RAM), non-volatile memory (e.g., ROM, EEPROM, flash memory, etc.), or some combination of the two, accessible by the processing unit(s). The memory (120, 125) stores software (180) implementing one or more innovations for block vector prediction, in the form of computer-executable instructions suitable for execution by the processing unit(s)).
Non-transitory computer-readable storage medium Claims 19 and 20 have limitations similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) of Claim 1, and are met by the references as discussed above. Claims 19 and 20 further recites storing instructions that cause a processor to perform” and “storing a bitstream of a video (See Zhu, Par. [0016] a computing device adapted to perform the method or as part of a tangible computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions for causing a computing device to perform the method. Par. [0039] The tangible storage (140) may be removable or non-removable, and includes magnetic disks, magnetic tapes or cassettes, CD-ROMs, DVDs, or any other medium which can be used to store information and which can be accessed within the computing system (100). The storage (140) stores instructions for the software (180) implementing one or more innovations for block vector prediction).
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 of this title, 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 10 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 2016/0330471 A1) in view of Tourapis et al., (US 2016/0360234 A1) referred to as Tourapis hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 10, Zhu discloses claim 1. Zhu further discloses further comprising: determining that a set of reconstructed samples above a current coding tree unit (CTU) of the video unit are used for IBC reference (Par. [0111] the top left position of a current block).
Zhu does not specifically teach a set of reconstructed samples above a current coding tree unit (CTU) row. Therefore, Zhu fails to explicitly teach determining that a set of reconstructed samples above a current coding tree unit (CTU) row of the video unit are used for IBC reference.
However, Tourapis teaches determining that a set of reconstructed samples above a current coding tree unit (CTU) row of the video unit are used for IBC reference (Par. [0035] the height threshold may define a search area in terms of a number of pixel rows. In the example shown in FIG. 3B, the height threshold is five blocks, i.e. LCUs. In an alternative embodiment, the current LCU row may not be included in the threshold (i.e. samples above CTU row))
References Zhu and Tourapis are considered to be analogous art because they relate to video coding using Intra Block Copy. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying samples above the current CTU row as suggested by Tourapis in the invention of Zhu in order to restrict coding according to the capabilities of the encoding and decoding devices, such as memory and processing power (See Tourapis, Par. [0034]).
Regarding Claim 11, Zhu in view of Tourapis teaches claim 10. Zhu further teaches wherein the set of reconstructed samples are within a current slice of the video unit, or wherein the set of reconstructed samples are within a current tile of the video unit (Par. [0143], as another example for HEVC implementations in which a picture includes multiple tiles or multiple slices, BV values (and default BV predictors) may be constrained to reference a location with the current tile (and/or current slice)).
Regarding Claim 12, Zhu in view of Tourapis teaches claim 11. Tourapis further teaches wherein another set of reconstructed samples outside the current tile are not used as IBC reference (Par. [0035] the height threshold may define a search area in terms of a number of pixel rows. In the example shown in FIG. 3B, the height threshold is five blocks, i.e. LCUs. In an alternative embodiment, the current LCU row may not be included in the threshold (i.e. samples not used)).
Regarding Claim 13, Zhu discloses claim 1. Zhu further discloses further comprising: determining that a set of reconstructed samples within a current coding tree unit (CTU) (Par. [0111] the top left position of a current block) are used for IBC reference (Par. [0033], In the embodiments of FIG. 3A, 3B, and 3C, IBC operates on pixel blocks that are a subset of an LCU. For example, current pixel block 306 (indicated with stripes) (i.e. video unit) is the lower right corner of current LCU 310 (indicated with a dark boarder) Par. [0034], FIG. 3B shows a partially reconstructed picture 320 having a shaded portion 322 that is coded (e.g., LCUs 0-54) and a portion 324 that is not yet coded (shown as the blank boxes)).
Zhu does not specifically teach a set of reconstructed samples within a current coding tree unit (CTU) row. Therefore, Zhu fails to explicitly teach determining that a set of reconstructed samples above a current coding tree unit (CTU) row of the video unit are used for IBC reference.
However, Tourapis teaches determining that a set of reconstructed samples within a current coding tree unit (CTU) row of the video unit are used for IBC reference (Par. [0035] the height threshold may define a search area in terms of a number of pixel rows. In the example shown in FIG. 3B, the height threshold is five blocks, i.e. LCUs. In an alternative embodiment, the current LCU row may not be included in the threshold (i.e. samples within CTU row)).
References Zhu and Tourapis are considered to be analogous art because they relate to video coding using Intra Block Copy. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying samples above the current CTU row as suggested by Tourapis in the invention of Zhu in order to restrict coding according to the capabilities of the encoding and decoding devices, such as memory and processing power (See Tourapis, Par. [0034]).
Regarding Claim 14, Zhu in view of Tourapis teaches claim 13. Zhu further teaches wherein another set of reconstructed samples outside the current subpicture are not used as IBC reference (Par. [0035] the height threshold may define a search area in terms of a number of pixel rows. In the example shown in FIG. 3B, the height threshold is five blocks, i.e. LCUs. In an alternative embodiment, the current LCU row may not be included in the threshold (i.e. samples not used)).
Conclusion
The prior art references made of record are not relied upon but are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Xu et al. (US 11,451,831 B2) teaches determining the current vector information for a current unit of samples in the current block based on the coding mode for the current block and a history buffer which is configured to store vector information of at least a block previously decoded in the IBC mode and a string previously decoded in the string copy mode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to SUSAN E HODGES whose telephone number is (571)270-0498. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 8:00 am (EST) to 4:00 pm (EST).
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Brian T. Pendleton, can be reached on (571) 272-7527. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Susan E. Hodges/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights