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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 02/18/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 7 and 20, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation(s) "third block vector,” which is/are not pre-established by a preceding “second block vector” in this claim or any preceding claims on which this claim is dependent. Further, the later occurrence of “a third block vector,” after a third block vector has already been established, is improper and unclear. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim(s) 8 and 21 is/are rejected for their dependence on claim(s) 7 and 20, because they do not contain additional language that would overcome the indefiniteness issue recited with regard to those claims.
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 taught 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9, 12, 14-17, 19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. (US 20220150471) (hereinafter Bae) in view of Li et al. (20230113104) (hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 1, Bae teaches A method of predicting a block of a video picture, comprising:
determining a first block vector as a displacement between the first prediction block and the block of the video picture, the first block vector identifying the first prediction block as a prediction block candidate of the block of the video picture (see Bae paragraphs 74-80 regarding block vectors stored in buffer of motion information on a sub-block basis in some bases, where the block vector is the displacement between prediction block and picture block added to a list of block candidates).
However, Bae does not explicitly teach template matching as needed for the limitations of claim 1.
Li, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches deriving a first prediction block from an intra-template-matching prediction mode determining the first prediction block by minimizing a cost function calculated between sample values of a L-shaped template of the block of the video picture and a L-shaped template of a reconstructed block of the video picture (see Li paragraphs 119-127 regarding intra template matching prediction mode that determines prediction block by minimized cost function of L-shaped template of video block and reconstructed block- in combination with Bae, which determines a displacement, the prediction block may be determined by Li and the first block vector determined by Bae and placed in a prediction candidate list); and,
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teaching of Bae to include the teaching of Li so that in combination with Bae, which determines a displacement, the prediction block may be determined by Li and the first block vector determined by Bae and placed in a prediction candidate list.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to improve coding efficiency in the determination of prediction block candidates (see Li paragraphs 119-127).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bae and Li teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Bae and Li teaches wherein the first block vector is stored in a block-based buffer of motion information (see Bae paragraphs 74-80 regarding block vectors stored in buffer of motion information on a sub-block basis in some bases, where the block vector is the displacement between prediction block and picture block added to a list of block candidates).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Bae and Li teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Bae and Li teaches wherein the first block vector is stored on subblock basis (see Bae paragraphs 74-80 regarding block vectors stored in buffer of motion information on a sub-block basis in some bases, where the block vector is the displacement between prediction block and picture block added to a list of block candidates).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bae and Li teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Bae and Li teaches further comprising: adding the first block vector to a list of block vector prediction candidates associated with the video picture (see Bae paragraphs 74-80 regarding block vectors stored in buffer of motion information on a sub-block basis in some bases, where the block vector is the displacement between prediction block and picture block added to a list of block candidates).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bae and Li teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Bae and Li teaches further comprising: storing the first block vector in an history-based-motion vector prediction table (see Bae paragraphs 74-80 regarding block vectors stored in buffer of motion information on a sub-block basis in some bases, where the block vector is the displacement between prediction block and picture block added to a list of block candidates, where candidates may be stored in a history based displacement vector candidate list).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Bae and Li teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Bae and Li teaches further comprising: encoding or decoding the block of the video picture based on the predicted block (see Bae paragraph 33).
Independent claim(s) 12 is/are analogous in scope to claim(s) 1, albeit regarding a processor, memory, and/or non-transitory storage medium as taught by Bae paragraph 31, and is/are rejected according to the same reasoning.
Independent claim(s) 14 is/are analogous in scope to claim(s) 1, albeit regarding a processor, memory, and/or non-transitory storage medium as taught by Bae paragraph 31, and is/are rejected according to the same reasoning.
Dependent claim(s) 15-17, 19, and 22 is/are analogous in scope to claim(s) 2-4, 6, and 9, and is/are rejected according to the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 5, 7-8, 18, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. (US 20220150471) (hereinafter Bae) in view of Li et al. (20230113104) (hereinafter Li), further in view of Hsieh et al. (US 20200204819) (hereinafter Hsieh).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bae and Li teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 4, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Bae and Li teaches the block of the video picture being predicted by a second prediction block (see Bae paragraphs 74-80 regarding block vectors stored in buffer of motion information on a sub-block basis in some bases, where the block vector is the displacement between prediction block and picture block added to a list of block candidates, where two displacement candidates may be included in the list),
wherein the method further comprises: predicting the second block vector by a block vector of the list of block vector prediction candidates (see Bae paragraphs 74-80 regarding block vectors stored in buffer of motion information on a sub-block basis in some bases, where the block vector is the displacement between prediction block and picture block added to a list of block candidates, where two displacement candidates may be included in the list).
However, the combination of Bae and Li does not explicitly teach IBC block matching as needed for the limitations of claim 5.
Hsieh, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the second prediction block being derived from an intra-block-copy prediction mode determining, by block matching, the second block vector as a displacement between the block of the video picture and a prediction block of a reconstructed area of the video picture (see Hsieh paragraphs 100-105 regarding IBC block matching as a displacement vector between prediction and reconstructed blocks and adding vectors to list- in combination with Bae and Li, the additional prediction block predicted with IBC block matching may be added to the displacement vector list),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Bae and Li to include the teaching of Hsieh so that in combination with Bae and Li, the additional prediction block predicted with IBC block matching may be added to the displacement vector list.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance the processing efficiency of determining a prediction block candidate by incorporating a wider range of techniques (see Hsieh paragraphs 100-105).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Bae and Li teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 6, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
However, the combination of Bae and Li does not explicitly teach IBC block matching as needed for the limitations of claim 7.
Hsieh, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the history-based-motion vector prediction table further stores at least one third block vector associated with at least one prediction block of at least one reconstructed block of the video picture, each of the at least one third block vector being derived from an intra-block-copy prediction mode determining, by block matching, a third block vector as a displacement between a prediction block of a reconstructed area of the video picture and a reference block of the video picture (see Hsieh paragraphs 100-105 regarding IBC block matching as a displacement vector between prediction and reconstructed blocks and adding vectors to list- in combination with Bae and Li, the additional prediction block predicted with IBC block matching may be added to the history based displacement vector list).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Bae and Li to include the teaching of Hsieh so that in combination with Bae and Li, the additional prediction block predicted with IBC block matching may be added to the displacement vector list.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance the processing efficiency of determining a prediction block candidate by incorporating a wider range of techniques (see Hsieh paragraphs 100-105).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Bae, Li, and Hsieh teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 7, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Bae, Li, and Hsieh teaches wherein the block of the video picture is predicted by the second prediction block, the second prediction block being derived from an intra-block-copy prediction mode determining, by block matching, a second block vector as a displacement between the block of the video picture and a prediction block of a reconstructed area of the video picture (see Hsieh paragraphs 100-105 regarding IBC block matching as a displacement vector between prediction and reconstructed blocks and adding vectors to list- in combination with Bae and Li, the additional prediction block predicted with IBC block matching may be added to the history based displacement vector list),
wherein the method further comprises predicting the second block vector by a block vector of the history-based-motion vector prediction table (see Bae paragraphs 74-80 regarding block vectors stored in buffer of motion information on a sub-block basis in some bases, where the block vector is the displacement between prediction block and picture block added to a list of block candidates, where candidates may be stored in a history based displacement vector candidate list).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance the processing efficiency of determining a prediction block candidate by incorporating a wider range of techniques (see Hsieh paragraphs 100-105).
Dependent claim(s) 18 and 20-21 is/are analogous in scope to claim(s) 5 and 7-8, and is/are rejected according to the same reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew D Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-3527. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30am - 5:30pm EST.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571) 272-7383. 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.
/MATTHEW DAVID KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483