DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/11/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 06/11/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
4 Claims 1-20, are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20, have been considered but are found unpersuasive.
An analysis of the published instant Application (PGPUB) has been performed in view of the arguments raised in the Remarks at Pg.9 against the prior arts to Xu'540 and Xu'544, citing;
Applicants Argument
At Pg.9 of the Remarks, it is alleged that; “However, the above contents discuss the comparison between buffer size and CTU size and does not involve any comparison with picture size at all. For a PHOSITA, in the context of video processing, a CTU and a picture are not equivalent concepts.”
Examiner’s Rebuttal
In response to applicant's argument that; “…a CTU and a picture are not equivalent concepts.”, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte, Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
The argument citing, “…a CTU and a picture are not equivalent concepts.”, is verified against the definitions identified at the instant Application (ref. PGPUB) it is admitted that a direct relationship is established between the picture width and height with the CTU, per Fig.6 and Par.[0215], and where at Par.[0034, 0040-0042, etc.] is stated that, “The video data may comprise one or more pictures.” And according to Sec.5.9 Embodiment #9, establishing the terms given for the “video unit”, as the video coding components represented by; CTUs among which CU, PU, CTB, CB etc., at Par.[0167-0179, 0236], as depicted at Fig.9, block 910, which during a conversion of the “video unit” between a video and a bitstream, derives a first size parameter of an intra block copy (IBC) buffer or an IBC reference area as based on a second size parameter of a region associated with the video unit, at Par.[0238] hence the IBC reference area or the IBC buffer are associated e.g., as being derived from the video unit, Par.[0240] so that in this case describe(s) a width of the IBC buffer or of the IBC reference area which in turn, determines by a “size parameter” multiplier (of two, Id. 2m and 2n), the width and height of the “picture” as represented at Pars.[0242-0248].
It may be deducted that contrary to the above argument, the CTU, unit, is viewed as part of the video unit, is buffered in the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area and thus associated with the video unit, hence having a parametric relation to the width and height of the “picture”.
It is contended that Xu’544 and Xu’540, both teach the size relationship between the prediction method using intra block copy (IBC) buffered according to IBC width and height as Wbuf and Hbuf, as dimensions of the current block WxH is positioned in a current picture of dimensions Wpic and Hpic and as part of the coding tree unit (CTU) with dimensions Wctu and Hctu for width and height, according to at least Par.[0273] as further emphasized.
A similar width/height association between the current buffer CurrBUF width and height vs. the Picture buffer width and height of the picture at coordinates represented by the buffered reference picture coordinates (RefX_Pic, RefY_Pic) at Expressions (1) and (2) described at Left Col. of Pg.773 in Zhang’s publication (NPL) titled, “Improvement of Intra Block Copy in Video Coding with Reference Block Compression”, EUSIPCO 2021, herein selected for obviating the said size parameter among the video blocks and the video picture representation, of the instant coding process.
In this case it is clear that the CTU is not defined as a “concept” of a tree partitioning process but rather of a defined processed CU/PU units/blocks of a divided picture, specifically defined by pixel coordinates and block size parameters of width and height WxH or MxN, as multiple size factoring by (m.n) e.g., mW and nH representing the picture finally stored at a reference picture buffer for picture reconstruction at the reverse/inverse prediction of the current picture (Zhang; Sec.I, Fig.1 using CTUs of the picture).
The ordinary skilled in the art would have found obvious to consider the picture being divided into picture blocks within the prediction process, then being reversed to the whole picture size during picture reconstruction according to the specific picture block residual data and size parameters, computed by a specific “size parameter” of proportionality, as recited at claim 1;
“a first size parameter of either an intra block copy (IBC) buffer or an IBC reference area,
wherein the determining of the first size parameter is based on a second size parameter of a region associated with the video unit, the video unit being applied with an IBC mode; and
performing the conversion based on the determined IBC buffer or [[the]] IBC reference area,“.
The skilled in the art would similarly find obvious to remark that since the first IBC buffer size parameters (in width or height) or IBC referenced area buffer size parameters (in width or height) are divided parts of the whole picture size, their respective width and height would be smaller than the “picture associated with the video unit of the video unit”, at claim 1, reciting;
“wherein the first size parameter of the IBC buffer or IBC reference area is determined so that at least one of the following is met:
a width of the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area is not smaller than a width of a picture associated with the video unit, or
a height of the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area is not smaller than a height of the picture.”.
Applicant’s representative is encouraged to contact the Examiner related to matter deemed to advance the prosecution.
Double Patenting
6. Claim 1 of the instant Application is patentably indistinct from claims 1 and 2 of the pending Application for Patent No. 18/586,214 pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f) or pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.78(b).
The provisional nonstatutory obviousness double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees.
When two or more applications filed by the same applicant contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822
A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to; http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as explained below;
Examiner’s Reasoning for the provisional Obviousness Double Patenting determination is based on the examination rules set below.
“A generic claim cannot be allowed to an applicant if the prior art discloses a species falling within the claimed genus.” The species in that case will anticipate the genus. In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408, 411, 125 USPQ 345, 347 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2131.02.
Instant Application vs. Conflicting Patent - claim analysis
Specifically, all the components of the method of the instant application claim 1, are defined and encompass the limitations claimed by the conflicting pending application.
The difference between the instant application at claim 1 and the pending application claim 1 lies in the fact that the instant claim includes an “OR” alternative limiting element, reciting (in bold); “ performing the conversion based on the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area. “, but rather being similar with the pending application claiming at 1; “performing the conversion based on the IBC buffer.”, which would have been obvious in view of the skilled artisan.
Furthermore, the amended instant claim 1, now reads into the constraints determined at claim 2 of the conflicting application for patent, by addressing the buffer size being dependent on the width and height of the buffer for the IIBC reference area being larger than the width and height of the picture associated with the video unit or picture.
Thus, the invention of claim 1 and 2 of in the conflicting pending application for patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the instant application claim 1.
It has been held by the Court that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Since the instant application claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of the conflicting pending application for patent, it is deemed patentably indistinct from the named claim 1 of the conflicting patent, as detailed below.
The remaining claims are also rejected under this statute for reciting analogous subject matter by a different syntax.
Claims 1, 11 and 18-20 have been amended, according to Applicant’s statement at Pg.7 of Remarks, citing; “Without conceding the propriety of the rejection and in an effort to advance prosecution, Applicant has amended claim 1 for clarification.”, thereby being understood that the scope of the claim remains unchanged.
Examiner concurs and therefore finds pertinent to maintain the Obviousness Double Patenting (ODP) rejection, on the same rationale originally presented.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu’540 Jizheng et al., (hereinafter Xu’540) (WO 2020/156540A1) published 06 August 2020 and Xu Jizheng et al., (hereinafter Xu’544) WO 2020/156544 A1) in view of Lai Zhang et al., (hereinafter Zhang) “Improvement of Intra Block Copy in Video Coding with Reference Block Compression”, ISBN: 978-9-0827-9706-0, EUSIPCO 2021.
Re Claim 1. (Currently Amended) Xu’540 discloses, a method of video processing (Abstract Par.[57]), comprising:
determining, during a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video unit (Abstract Par.[57]),
a first size parameter of either an intra block copy (IBC) buffer (a reference buffer size is set according to a width and height (W,H) Par.[0109, 0293] size parameter) or an IBC reference area (as an OR alternative),
wherein the determining of the first size parameter is based on a second size parameter of a region associated with the video unit (a reference area nMxnM is used for the CTU size MxM Par.[0256-0258]), the video unit being applied with an IBC mode (the nMxnM reference area is determined when the current block uses an IBC mode, Par.[0258] Fig.2); and
performing the conversion based on the determined IBC buffer or [[the]] IBC buffer or the IBC reference area (performing a conversion/coding of the current block based on either the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area, Fig.18, Par.[0042, 0307]),
wherein the first size parameter of the IBC buffer or IBC reference area is determined so that at least one of the following is met (the buffer size is defined according to the CTU size, where MxN notations correspond with the CTU size WxH according to Par.[0109] (1) (a….f), or as adapted for different profiles, levels, tiers etc., at Par.[0109] (steps 2…7) and the IBC buffer and IBC reference area is based on size constraints):
a width of the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area is not smaller than a width of a picture associated with the video unit (the MxN pixels buffer size is equal to the CTU size, i.e., the buffer width is not smaller than the CTU size, where M=W, at Par.[0109] (1) (g)(j)(l)(o), or as extended to different mW sizes and partitions of CTU, where the IBC buffer size Wbuf, Hbuf, of the current WxH current block, and the IBC decoded picture area buffer are smaller than the equivalent size of the picture buffer Wpic and Hpic, respectively, Par.[0273], etc.), or
a height of the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area is not smaller than a height of the picture (the MxN pixels buffer size is equal to the CTU size, i.e., the buffer height is not smaller than the CTU size, where M=H, at Par.[0109] (1) (k)(o) or as extended to different nH sizes and partitions of the CTU, and Par.[0273]. etc.).
Xu’544 also teaches,
determining, during a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video unit,
a first size parameter of an intra block copy (IBC) buffer or
an IBC reference area based on a second size parameter of a region associated with the video unit, the video unit being applied with an IBC mode; and
performing the conversion based on the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area (Par.[0012-0013, 0015-0017 based on the reference buffer Par.[0036] Fig.12),
Further the art to Zhang is identified for defining the IBC buffer size structure where the width and height buffer of the picture associated with the video unit as,
wherein the first size parameter of the IBC buffer or IBC reference area is determined so that at least one of the following is met:
a width of the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area is not smaller than a width of a picture associated with the video unit, or
a height of the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area is not smaller than a height of the picture (i.e., the CTU, CU,PU in IBC the CurrBUF) with related buffer size, width/height association between the current buffer CurrBUF width and height vs. the Picture buffer width and height of the picture at coordinates represented by the buffered reference picture coordinates (RefX_Pic, RefY_Pic) at Expressions (1) and (2) described at Left Col. of Pg.773. In this case the picture stored at a reference picture buffer for picture reconstruction during the reverse/inverse prediction of the current picture, per Sec.I, “Introduction” and Fig.1 by using a plurality of CTUs, would be inherently larger than current buffer CurBUF, computed as being a percentage of the BufWidth and of the BufHeight at Eq.(1) and (2)).
It would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled in the art to combine the similar arts of Xu’540 and Xu’544 in where Xu’540 claiming improved Versatile Video Coding additions at (Par.[0060]) in order to emphasize specific common methods of implementing the reference buffer indicating various buffer sizes according to CTU size constraints and achieving similar buffer management techniques found in Xu’544 (Par.[0059]) along with Zhang, teaching the details related to the size of a picture vs. the current block or reference block thus according to the claimed matter such combined arts would be found predictable.
Re Claim 2. (Previously Presented) Xu’540 and Xu’544 in view of Zhou disclose, the method of claim 1,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein the region is a picture associated with the video unit, and wherein determining the first size parameter of the IBC buffer or IBC reference area based on the second size parameter of the region comprises:
determining that [[a]]the width of the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area is the (the MxN pixels buffer size is equal to the CTU size, i.e., the buffer width is not smaller than the CTU size, where M=W, at Par.[0109] (1) (g)(j)(l)(o), or as extended to different mW sizes and partitions of the picture of reference samples, at Par.[0109] (3), or the reconstructed pictures before or after filtering [0109] ((4), (5), (6) etc.).
Xu’544 teaches these limitations at (Par.[0109] (1)-)6)).
Re Claim 3. (Previously Presented) Xu’540 and Xu’544 in view of Zhou disclose, the method of claim 1,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein the region is a coding tree unit (CTU), and wherein determining the first size parameter of the IBC buffer or IBC reference area based on the second size parameter of the region comprises:
determining that the m times of the width of the CTU, wherein m is a positive integer (where the first size parameter being the positive integer m is factoring the Width (M) of the CTU, Par.[0109](1)(g) and defined at [0109](1)(m) for M=mW and/or at [0109](1)(n)(ii to iv), where m= 4 =22 , the width of CTU = 64, etc.) .
Xu’544 teaches the same (Par.[0109](1)(g) and defined at [0109](1)(m) for M=mW and/or at [0109](1)(n)(ii to iv), where m= 4 =22 where m, is defined as a positive integer).
Re Claim 4. (Previously Presented) Xu’540 and Xu’544 in view of Zhou disclose, the method of claim 3,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein m is a smallest integer that satisfies a condition where 2m times of the width of the CTU is not smaller than the (the CTU is not smaller than the width of the picture when M=W at [0109](1)(l)).
Re Claim 5. (Previously Presented) Xu’540 and Xu’544 in view of Zhou disclose, the method of claim 1,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein the region is a virtual pipeline data unit (VPDU), and wherein determining the first size parameter of the IBC buffer or IBC reference area based on the second size parameter of the region comprises:
determining thatm times of a width of the VPDU, wherein m is a positive integer (the IBC buffer size is a multiple of 2, i.e., 2m for the VDPU according to the Par.[0109](3)( f)).
Re Claim 6. (Previously Presented) Xu’540 and Xu’544 in view of Zhou disclose, the method of claim 5,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein m is a smallest integer that satisfies a condition where 2m times of the width of the VPDU is not smaller than the (performed according to the buffer size is adaptively being changed based on the current block or VPDU’s location, at Alternative buffer combination” Par.[0109] (42) and “Virtual IBC Buffer” Par.[0109](44)(a…. c)).
Re Claim 7. (Previously Presented) Xu’540 and Xu’544 in view of Zhou disclose, the method of claim 1,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein the region is a picture associated with the video unit, and wherein determining the first size parameter of the IBC buffer or IBC reference area based on the second size parameter of the region comprises:
determining that (the MxN pixels buffer size is equal to the CTU size, i.e., the buffer height is not smaller than the CTU size, where M=H, at Par.[0109] (1) (k)(o) or as extended to different nH sizes and partitions of the CTU, etc.).
Re Claim 8. (Previously Presented) Xu’540 and Xu’544 in view of Zhou disclose, the method of claim 1,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein the region is a coding tree unit (CTU), and wherein determining the first size parameter of the IBC buffer or IBC reference area based on the second size parameter of the region comprises:
determining that the n times of a height of the CTU, wherein n is a positive integer, wherein n is a smallest integer that satisfies a condition where 2n times of the height of the CTU is not smaller than the (the MxN pixels buffer size is equal to the CTU size, i.e., the buffer height (H) is not smaller than the CTU size, where M=H, at Par.[0109] (1) (k)(o) or for a multiple of 2n height multiplier for H sizes, [0109](l)(m)(n) where N=2n and N=nH i.e., the height or as extended to different nH sizes and partitions of the CTU, etc.).
Re Claim 9. (Previously Presented) Xu’540 and Xu’544 in view of Zhou disclose, the method of claim 1,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein the region is a virtual pipeline data unit (VPDU), and wherein determining the first size parameter of the IBC buffer or IBC reference area based on the second size parameter of the region comprises:
determining that n times of a height of the VPDU, wherein n is a positive integer, wherein n is a smallest integer that satisfies a condition where 2" times of the height of the VPDU is not smaller than (the same as height (H) being not smaller than the CTU size, where M=H, at Par.[0109] (1) (k)(o) or for a multiple of 2n height multiplier for H sizes, [0109](l)(m)(n) where N=2n and N=nH i.e., the height or as extended to different nH sizes).
Re Claim 10. (Original) Xu’540 and Xu’544 in view of Zhou disclose, the method of claim 8,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein n is 2 (as would be implicitly determined from Par.[0109](3)(l)(m) where the N=nH may be n=2 as a positive integer e.g., for H=128 height size).
Re Claim 11. (Currently Amended) Xu’540 and Xu’544 in view of Zhou disclose, the method of claim 1,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein a set of blocks included in the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area of the video unit is determined [[ ]] (the IBC buffer size and/or the reference area size is determined according to the various values in Par.[0109](1)(a… o), Par.[0109](3)(a… f)).
Re Claim 12. (Original) Xu’540 and Xu’544 in view of Zhou disclose, the method of claim 11,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area comprises all CTUs that have smaller horizontal index than a current CTU in a current CTU row within a current slice associated with the video unit (the current CTU 64x64 size (i.e., the H) being smaller than the current slice area from which it is selected, the respective index would have been within a smaller row/horizontal range i.e., the associated reference area being (i.e., nH size), at least in Figs.8 to 9 and Figs.12 to 14, would be smaller as well, Par.[0293-0294]).
Re Claim 13. (Original) Xu’540 and Xu’544 in view of Zhou disclose, the method of claim 11,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area comprises all CTUs that have smaller horizontal index than a current CTU in a current CTU row within a current tile associated with the video unit (the same description referenced to slice at claim 12 is valid for the tile size partitions).
Re Claim 14. (Original) Xu’540 and Xu’544 in view of Zhou disclose, the method of claim 11,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area comprises all CTUs that have smaller horizontal index than a current CTU in a current CTU row within a current subpicture associated with the video unit (similarly hence the sub-picture is smaller than the video unit picture derived from, its horizontal index would be smaller, per rationale at claim 12) .
Re Claim 15. (Original) Xu’540 and Xu’544 in view of Zhou disclose, the method of claim 11,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein if a horizontal index of a current CTU is x, the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area comprises a set of CTUs that have horizonal index no smaller than x in a CTU row above a current CTU which is within at least one of: a current slice, a current tile or a current subpicture (the same rationale at claim 12 is valid in its opposite consideration form of expression for the a current slice, a current tile or a current subpicture).
Re Claim 16. (Original) Xu’540 and Xu’544 in view of Zhou disclose, the method of claim 11,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein if a horizontal index of a current CTU is x, the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area comprises all CTUs that have horizonal index larger than x in a CTU row above a current CTU which is within at least one of: a current slice, a current tile or a current subpicture (the same rationale at claim 12 as being larger is valid in its opposite consideration form of expression for a current slice, a current tile or a current subpicture).
Re Claim 17. (Original) Xu’540 and Xu’544 in view of Zhou disclose, the method of claims 1,
Xu’540 teaches about, wherein the conversion includes encoding the target block into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the target block from the bitstream (the coding process is represented as an encoder or decoder side Par.[0022], encoder at [0099] or claim 33 and decoder at claim 34).
Re Claim 18. (Currently Amended) Xu’540 and Xu’544 in view of Zhou disclose,
Xu’540 teaches about, an apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non- transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor (the processor Par.[0280] and non-transitory storage, Par.[0364]), cause the processor to:
determine, during a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video unit (Abstract Par.[57]), a first size parameter of either an intra block copy (IBC) buffer (a reference buffer size is set according to a width and height (W,H) Par.[0109, 0293]) or an IBC reference area, wherein the determining of the first size parameter is based on a second size parameter of a region associated with the video unit (a reference area nMxnM is used for the CTU size MxM Par.[0256-0258]), the video unit being applied with an IBC mode (the nMxnM reference area is determined when the current block uses IBC mode, Par.[0258] Fig.2); and
perform the conversion based on the determined IBC buffer or (performing a conversion/coding of the current block based on either the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area, Fig.18, Par.[0042, 0307]),
wherein the first size parameter of the IBC buffer or IBC reference area is determined so that at least one of the following is met: a width of the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area is not smaller than a width of a picture associated with the video unit, or a height of the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area is not smaller than a height of the picture (similarly mapper per claim 1 limitations).
Xu’544 teaches this limitation at (the processor Par.[0280] and non-transitory storage, Par.[0359]).
Re Claim 19. (Currently Amended) Xu’540 and Xu’544 in view of Zhou disclose,
Xu’540 teaches about, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions (a non-transitory computer readable medium for execution by processor, Par.[0364]) that cause a processor to:
determine, during a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video unit, a first size parameter of either an intra block copy (IBC) buffer or an IBC reference area, wherein the determining of the first size parameter is based on a second size parameter of a region associated with the video unit, the video unit being applied with an IBC mode; and perform the conversion based on the determined IBC buffer or [[the]] IBC reference area, wherein the first size parameter of the IBC buffer or IBC reference area is determined so that at least one of the following is met: a width of the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area is not smaller than a width of a picture associated with the video unit, or a height of the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area is not smaller than a height of the picture (as implemented and mapped at each respective limitations of the apparatus claim 18).
Xu’544 teaches the (non-transitory storage, Par.[0359]).
Re Claim 20. (Currently Amended) Xu’540 and Xu’544 in view of Zhou disclose,
Xu’540 teaches about, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus (a non-transitory computer readable medium for execution by processor, Par.[0364], wherein the method comprises:
determining a first size parameter of either an intra block copy (IBC) buffer or an IBC reference area, wherein the determining of the first size parameter is based on a second size parameter of a region associated with a video unit of the video, the video unit being applied with an IBC mode; and
generating a bitstream of the video unit based on the determined IBC buffer or [[the]] IBC reference areal wherein the first size parameter of the IBC buffer or IBC reference area is determined so that at least one of the following is met: a width of the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area is not smaller than a width of a picture associated with the video unit, or a height of the IBC buffer or the IBC reference area is not smaller than a height of the picture.
Xu’544 teaches the (non-transitory storage, Par.[0359]).
Zhou teaches these limitations (performing each and every respective referenced limitation of the method of claim 1, where the CTU, CU,PU in IBC the CurrBUF) are related buffer sizes, to width/height between the current buffer size CurrBUF width and height vs. the Picture buffer width and height of the picture at coordinates represented by the buffered reference picture coordinates (RefX_Pic, RefY_Pic) at Expressions (1) and (2) described at Left Col. of Pg.773. In this case the picture stored at a reference picture buffer for picture reconstruction during the reverse/inverse prediction of the current picture, per Sec.I, “Introduction” and Fig.1 by using a plurality of CTUs, would be inherently larger than current buffer CurBUF, computed as being a percentage of the BufWidth and of the BufHeight at Eq.(1) and (2)).)
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c) to consider these references when responding to this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRAMOS KALAPODAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4622. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 on 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 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DRAMOS KALAPODAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights