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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 25: A method for transmitting a bitstream, the method comprising: obtaining the bitstream comprising prediction mode information generated by performing an image encoding method … is directed to a method of transmitting a bitstream which is generated by an encoding method. In other words, the transmitting method is just transmitting the bitstream. The bitstream being transmitted has no disclosed or claim-defined structure that differentiates the claimed data stream from any other data stream/transmitting. Applicant is advised to change the claim limitations to active verbs that encode this bitstream.
According to MPEP 2173.02(II), claim 13 does not meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision:
In reviewing a claim for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, the examiner must consider the claim as a whole to determine whether the claim apprises one of ordinary skill in the art of its scope and, therefore, serves the notice function required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, by providing clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement of the patent. See, e.g., Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 216 F.3d 1372, 1379, 55 USPQ2d 1279, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2000). …
If the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See Morton Int’l, Inc. v. Cardinal Chem. Co., 5 F.3d 1464, 1470, 28 USPQ2d 1190, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The bitstream being transmitted in claim 25 fails the notice function required by 112(b) because it does not provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement. For example, how would one of ordinary skill in the art determine whether a compact disc with a recorded bitstream infringes claim 25? The claimed (and disclosed) data stream has no particular structure, arrangement, indicia or anything else that would distinguish the stored data stream from any other bitstream. In other words, once the encoding method has completed operations and generates an (encoded) data stream there is nothing within the data stream itself that differs from another data stream other than the video data content. The metes and bounds of claim 25 are therefore not defined by the encoding method but instead by transmission of the data stream which is a wholly unclear and indefinite entity in and of itself.
Claim 25 is recommended to be re-written as a method claim to carry out the steps of encoding a bitstream. Otherwise, transmission of any bitstream can be used to reject the claimed method of transmitting a bitstream.
Claims 26-27 are rejected for the same reasons found in the rejection of claim 25.
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) 1-12, 14-19 and 21-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RUIZ COLL et al., (US 2026/0292152).
Regarding claim 1: RUIZ COLL teaches an image decoding method, comprising: deriving a block vector of a current block [Abstract teaches: A video coder (encoder or decoder) determines, based on a block vector (BV) associated with a first block]; and deriving a prediction block for the current block by performing prediction based on the block vector, wherein the block vector is derived based on intra template matching prediction [¶0161 teaches: In some examples, the BV may be selected or derived from one or more BVs determined by an intra template matching prediction (IntraTMP) process. FIG. 27A shows an example of the IntraTMP for predicting or determining a current block 2700, according to some embodiments.].
Regarding claim 2: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
In addition, RUIZ COLL teaches wherein: the block vector is derived from a block vector candidate in a candidate list [¶0169 teaches: the decoder (and also the encoder) may construct a candidate list of up to a predetermined maximum number (e.g., 19) of candidate block vectors (or candidate block vector predictors; and ¶0169 teaches: a single predictor is selected from the candidate list)].
Regarding claim 3: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 2.
In addition, RUIZ COLL teaches wherein: the candidate list is a list for an Intra Block Copy (IBC) [¶0131 TEACHES: 0131] Intra block copy (IBC) or current picture referencing (CPR) technique may be applied to determine a displacement vector (referred to as a block vector (BV)) ] merge mode or an IBC-Advanced Motion Vector Prediction (AMVP) mode.
Regarding claim 4: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 2.
In addition, RUIZ COLL teaches wherein: the block vector candidate is a block vector of a neighboring block which is adjacent to the current block [¶0174 teaches: FIG. 27B shows an example of a method for constructing IntraTMP BVP candidates for coding a current block. As shown in FIG. 27B, an initial merge list of BVP candidates 2718 corresponding to adjacent and non-adjacent merge BVP candidates are determined as shown at blocks 2715 and 2716 of FIG. 17B.].
Regarding claim 5: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 2.
In addition, RUIZ COLL teaches wherein: the block vector candidate is refined using template matching [¶[0175] In some examples, an initial sparse list 2754 of BVPs can be generated by sampling the search area according to a sampling interval 2752 and selecting BVPs based on the template matching costs determined for the reference template 2750 and current template 2751. The templates may be L-shaped templates].
Regarding claim 6: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
In addition, RUIZ COLL teaches wherein: the prediction uses at least one of Intra Block Copy (IBC) or intra template matching [¶0076 teaches: The intra block copy unit may perform similar to an inter prediction unit but predict blocks within the same picture. For example, the intra block copy unit may exploit repeated patterns that appear in screen content. Screen content may include, for example, computer generated text, graphics, and animation.].
Regarding claim 7: the claim is merely an image encoding method which is the inverse of the decoding method of claim 1. The rejection of claim 1 teaches encoding, therefore the rejection of claim 1 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 8: the claim is merely an image encoding method which is the inverse of the decoding method of claim 2. The rejection of claim 2 teaches encoding, therefore the rejection of claim 2 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 9: the claim is merely an image encoding method which is the inverse of the decoding method of claim 3. The rejection of claim 3 teaches encoding, therefore the rejection of claim 3 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 10: the claim is merely an image encoding method which is the inverse of the decoding method of claim 4. The rejection of claim 4 teaches encoding, therefore the rejection of claim 4 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 11: the claim is merely an image encoding method which is the inverse of the decoding method of claim 5. The rejection of claim 5 teaches encoding, therefore the rejection of claim 5applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 12: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 8.
In addition, RUIZ COLL teaches wherein: a plurality of block vector candidates in the candidate list is sorted according to template matching costs of the plurality of block vector candidates [¶0169 teaches: These candidate block vectors may be in ascending order according to the template matching costs of respective reference templates of candidate reference blocks indicated by the candidate block vectors.].
Regarding claim 14: the claim is merely a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream for image decoding, wherein the method of decoding is recited in claim 1. RUIZ COLL teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream for image decoding [computer-readable medium may include a non-transitory medium in which data can be stored, ¶0044]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 15: the claim is merely a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream for image decoding, wherein the method of decoding is recited in claim 2. RUIZ COLL teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream for image decoding [computer-readable medium may include a non-transitory medium in which data can be stored, ¶0044]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 2 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 16: the claim is merely a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream for image decoding, wherein the method of decoding is recited in claim 3. RUIZ COLL teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream for image decoding [computer-readable medium may include a non-transitory medium in which data can be stored, ¶0044]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 3 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 17: the claim is merely a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream for image decoding, wherein the method of decoding is recited in claim 4. RUIZ COLL teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream for image decoding [computer-readable medium may include a non-transitory medium in which data can be stored, ¶0044]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 4 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 18: the claim is merely a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream for image decoding, wherein the method of decoding is recited in claim 5. RUIZ COLL teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream for image decoding [computer-readable medium may include a non-transitory medium in which data can be stored, ¶0044]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 5 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 19: the claim is merely a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream for image decoding, the inverse of the encoding limitations of claim 12, and wherein the method of decoding is recited in claim 1. RUIZ COLL teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream for image decoding [computer-readable medium may include a non-transitory medium in which data can be stored, ¶0044]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 12 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 21: the claim is merely a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream for image decoding, wherein the method of decoding is recited in claim 6. RUIZ COLL teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream for image decoding [computer-readable medium may include a non-transitory medium in which data can be stored, ¶0044]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 6 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 22: the claim is merely a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium recording a bitstream wherein: the bitstream recorded on the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium is configured to, when read from the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium by an image decoding apparatus, cause the image decoding apparatus to perform an image decoding method of claim 1. RUIZ COLL teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream for image decoding [computer-readable medium may include a non-transitory medium in which data can be stored, ¶0044]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 23: the claim is merely a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium recording a bitstream wherein: the bitstream recorded on the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium is configured to, when read from the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium by an image decoding apparatus, cause the image decoding apparatus to perform an image decoding method of claim 2. RUIZ COLL teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream for image decoding [computer-readable medium may include a non-transitory medium in which data can be stored, ¶0044]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 2 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 24: the claim is merely a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium recording a bitstream wherein: the bitstream recorded on the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium is configured to, when read from the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium by an image decoding apparatus, cause the image decoding apparatus to perform an image decoding method of claim 3. RUIZ COLL teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream for image decoding [computer-readable medium may include a non-transitory medium in which data can be stored, ¶0044]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 3 applies equally to this claim.
Conclusion
Prior art not relied upon: Please refer to the references listed in an attached PTO-892 and that are not relied upon for the claim rejections detailed above. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
In particular, ZHANG et al., (US 2024/0275943) teaches performing the conversion between the target video block and the bitstream by applying, during a conversion between a target video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, at least one refinement process to the target video block based on a cost. The cost depends on reference samples corresponding to the target video block and further samples corresponding to a template of the target video bloc.;
ZHANG et al., (US 2024/0275984) teaches performing the conversion between the target video block and the bitstream by determining a cost during a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, the cost indicting a degree of distortion between two target blocks of the video and an amount of information for refinement of coding data of the current video block; refining the coding data based on the cost and the two target blocks; and performing the conversion based on the refined coding data; and
GOSWAMI et al., (US 2023/0098057) teaches an apparatus to determine a first template of a first block of samples. Then the apparatus searches, in a search region based on the first template, for a second template of a second block of samples. The apparatus decodes the first block of samples based on an intra prediction mode determined for the second block of samples.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marnie Matt whose telephone number is (303)297-4255. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30-5:00.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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.
/MARNIE A MATT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
