DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is a response to an application filed on 03/18/2026, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are originally presented.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claims rejected under 35 USC 102, 103, the Applicant argues, see Pg. 6-7, that Tsukuba does not teach “determining … whether an adjusting process is applied on a plurality of samples of the current video block” by asserting that residual coefficients are data generated after prediction and residual calculation, which is distinct from the samples of the video block.
Examiner cannot concur with the characterization that the residual coefficient is distinct from the samples of the video block. As acknowledged by the Applicant, the residual coefficients are determined from the samples of a current block after prediction and residual calculation, the residual coefficient are, thus, clearly part of the samples of a current block. Therefore, Tsukuba teaches adjusting process such as rearrangement is determined to be applied on samples of a current block.
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, 5-7, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsukuba (WO 2020145381 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tsukuba discloses a method for video processing, comprising (Tsukuba; Fig. 13. A video coding system/method is used.):
determining, based on coded information of a current video block of a video for a conversion between the current video block and a bitstream of the video, whether an adjusting process is applied on a plurality of samples of the current video block (Tsukuba; Pg. 48, 7th Para. to Pg. 48, 5th Para. An adjustment is determined to be used or not on samples of a current block in accordance with coded information of a current block.); and
performing the conversion based on the determination (Tsukuba; Pg. 48, 7th Para. to Pg. 48, 5th Para. A coding/conversion is performed in accordance with the determining.).
Regarding claim 2, Tsukuba discloses wherein the adjusting process comprises at least one of the following: reordering the plurality of samples, flipping the plurality of samples, shifting the plurality of samples, rotating the plurality of samples, or transforming the plurality of samples (Tsukuba; Pg. 48, 7th Para. to Pg. 48, 5th Para. An adjustment includes at least one of recording samples, flipping samples, shifting samples, rotating samples, or transforming samples.).
Regarding claim 3, Tsukuba discloses wherein the coded information comprises a prediction scheme used for the current video block (Tsukuba; Pg. 48, 7th Para. to Pg. 48, 5th Para. Coded information includes a prediction mode/scheme of a current block.).
Regarding claim 5, Tsukuba discloses wherein the coded information comprises a block dimension of the current video block (Tsukuba; Pg. 48, 7th Para. to Pg. 48, 5th Para. Coded information include a block dimension of a current block.).
Regarding claim 6, Tsukuba discloses wherein the coded information comprises at least one of the following: a width of the current video block, or a height of the current video block (Tsukuba; Pg. 48, 7th Para. to Pg. 48, 5th Para. Coded information includes at least one of a width of a current block or a height of a current block.).
Regarding claim 7, Tsukuba discloses wherein the adjusting process is applied on the plurality of samples if at least one of the following conditions is satisfied: the width is larger than or equal to a first threshold and/or the heigh is larger than or equal to a second threshold, the width is smaller than or equal to the first threshold and/or the heigh is smaller than or equal to the second threshold, the width is larger than the first threshold and/or the heigh is larger than the second threshold, the width is smaller than the first threshold and/or the heigh is smaller than the second threshold, a product of the width and the height is larger than or equal to a third threshold, the product is larger than the third threshold, the product is smaller than or equal to the third threshold, or the product is smaller than the third threshold (Tsukuba; Pg. 48, 7th Para. to Pg. 48, 5th Para. An adjustment process is used on samples in accordance with a width being less than a threshold or a height being less than a threshold.).
Regarding claim 12, Tsukuba discloses the plurality of samples comprise reconstruction samples of the current video block (Tsukuba; Pg. 22 1st, 2nd Para. Samples include reconstructed samples of a current block.).
Regarding claim 13, Tsukuba discloses the adjusting process is applied on the reconstruction samples immediately after residues for the current video block are added to prediction samples of the current video block, or wherein the reconstruction samples comprise reconstruction luma samples or reconstruction chroma samples of the current video block in a reshaper domain, or wherein the reconstruction samples comprise reconstruction luma samples or reconstruction chroma samples of the current video block in an original domain, or wherein the adjusting process is applied on the reconstruction samples to obtain adjusted reconstruction samples, and an inverse luma mapping of a LMCS process is applied based on the adjusted reconstruction samples (Tsukuba; Pg. 22 1st, 2nd Para. Reconstructed samples include luminance component, also see Pg. 43, last Para. to Pg. 44 2nd Para.).
Regarding claim 14, Tsukuba discloses the plurality of samples comprise original samples of the current video block, or wherein the plurality of samples comprise original luma samples of the current video block in a reshaper domain, or wherein the plurality of samples comprise original luma samples or original chroma samples of the current video block in an original domain, or wherein the plurality of samples comprise prediction samples of the current video block (Tsukuba; Pg. 22 1st, 2nd Para. Samples include original samples of a current block, or samples include original luminance samples.).
Regarding claim 15, Tsukuba discloses the adjusting process is applied on the original samples to obtain adjusted original samples (Tsukuba; Pg. 48, 7th Para. to Pg. 48, 5th Para. An adjustment is use on original samples to obtain adjusted original samples.), and residues for the current video block are obtained by subtracting prediction samples of the current video block from the adjusted original samples (Tsukuba; Pg. 11, 5th Para. Residual for a current block is obtained by subtracting prediction from adjusted original samples.).
Regarding claim 16, Tsukuba discloses the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream (Tsukuba; Pg. 11, 1st to 4th Para. A conversion includes encoding a current block into a bitstream.).
Regarding claim 17, Tsukuba discloses the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream (Tsukuba; Pg. 11, 1st to 4th Para. A conversion includes decoding a current block from a bitstream.).
Claim 18 is directed to an apparatus for video processing comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claim 1, and is rejected for the same reason of anticipation as outlined above.
Claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform acts comprising a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claim 1, and is rejected for the same reason of anticipation as outlined above.
Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for video processing, wherein the method comprises a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claim 1, and is rejected for the same reason of anticipation as outlined above.
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.
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukuba (WO 2020145381 A1) in view of Wang (US Pub. 20220217335 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Tsukuba discloses the adjusting process is applied on the plurality of samples (Tsukuba; Pg. 48, 7th Para. to Pg. 48, 5th Para. An adjustment process is used on samples).
But it does not specifically disclose the adjusting process is applied on the plurality of samples if the current video block is coded with at least one of the following: intra block copy (IBC), current picture referencing (CPR), intra template matching (intra TM) IBC template matching, template matching based IBC mode, merge based coding, or advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) based coding.
However, Wang teaches the adjusting process is applied on the plurality of samples if the current video block is coded with at least one of the following: intra block copy (IBC), current picture referencing (CPR), intra template matching (intra TM) IBC template matching, template matching based IBC mode, merge based coding, or advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) based coding (Wang; Para. [0005]. An adjustment process is used on samples if a current block is coded with at least one IBC, TM IBC, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding system of Tsukuba to adapt an block sample re-arrangement approach, by incorporating Wang’s teaching wherein block samples are re-arranged based on prediction modes, for the motivation to perform template-based prediction mode (Wang; Abstract.).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukuba (WO 2020145381 A1) in view of Keating (US Pub. 20210092415 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Tsukuba discloses the plurality of samples (Tsukuba; See remarks regarding claim 1 above.).
But it does not specifically disclose the plurality of samples comprise samples of the current video block in a reshaper domain.
However, Keating teaches the plurality of samples comprise samples of the current video block in a reshaper domain (Keating; Para. [0105]. Samples includes samples of a current block in a reshaping domain.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding system of Tsukuba to adapt a block sample processing approach, by incorporating Wang’s teaching wherein block samples are processed via LMCS, for the motivation to perform video data clipping/reshaping during coding (Keating; Abstract.).
Regarding claim 9, modified Tsukuba teaches the samples in the reshaper domain are obtained based on a luma mapping with chroma scaling (LMCS) process (Keating; Para. [0105]. Samples includes samples of a current block in a reshaping domain in accordance with LMCS.).
Regarding claim 10, modified Tsukuba teaches the plurality of samples comprise luma samples of the current video block in a reshaper domain (Keating; Para. [0105]. Samples include luma of a current block in a reshaping domain.).
Regarding claim 11, modified Tsukuba teaches the luma samples in the reshaper domain are obtained based on a luma mapping of an LMCS process (Keating; Para. [0105]. Luma samples in a reshaping domain are obtained in accordance with luma mapping of LMCS.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang (US Pub. 20240179343 A1) teaches video coding system that perform sample reordering a video block.
Lu (US Pub. 20250039436 A1) teaches a video coding system that performs sample shifting of a video block.
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 ALBERT KIR whose telephone number is (571)272-6245. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/ALBERT KIR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485