DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is a response to an amendment filed on 04/09/2026, in which claims 1-19 and 21 are pending and ready for examination.
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 (IDS) submitted on 06/11/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in this application and a copy has been placed of record in the file.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-19 and 21 have been considered but are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 1 applicant argues that Applicant respectfully submits that Nien does not disclose or suggest "predictive coded" sign of a block vector difference as recited in claim 1.
However, examiner respectfully disagrees. As disclosed in paragraph 87 of Nien, and admitted by applicant on page 6 of the Remarks, vector difference directions have 4 different combinations including at least one of the sign candidates: (+,+), (+,-), (-,+), and (-,-), however, the sign combination is not coded in the bitstream and only a flag is signaled in the bitstream. The vector difference direction may be derived based on a syntax bvd_sign_flag included in the bitstream on the decoder side. Thus, the sign of the block vector difference is not directly signaled and is predicted using the flag on the decoder side. Examiner also draws applicant’s attention to paragraph 1 of Nien that talks about the provisional application No. 63/266,402, which Nien claims benefit of. The provisional application is titled “Motion Vector Difference Sign Prediction” and the content of it is fully incorporated by reference into Nain’s disclosure. Therefore, Nien fully and clearly discloses every element of the claims, and the rejection is proper.
Claims 1-19 and 21 remain rejected since the system disclosed by the applicant is taught by the prior arts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nien (US 2023/0217013 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nien Discloses: A method of video processing, comprising:
determining, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video (see Nien, Fig. 8, converting the input video data into a bitstream), a sign of a block vector difference of the video unit (see Nien, paragraph 86-87), wherein the sign is predictive coded (see Nien, paragraph 87, bvd_sign_flag syntax included in the bitstream) and the video unit is coded with an intra block copy (IBC) mode (see Nien, paragraph 87, calculation of BVD (block vector difference) for IBC AMVP mode); and
performing the conversion (see Nien, Fig. 8) based on the sign and a value of the block vector difference (see Nien, paragraph 87, bvd_sign_flag and abs_bvd_minus2 syntax elements included in the bitstream).
Regarding claim 2, Nien Discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the block vector difference comprises a horizontal component and a vertical component (see Nien, paragraph 87), and
the sign of at least one of: the horizontal component or the vertical component is predictive coded (see Nien, paragraph 87 and 89).
Regarding claim 3, Nien Discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the block vector difference comprises a horizontal component and a vertical component (see Nien, paragraph 87 and 89), and
the sign of at least one of: the horizontal component or the vertical component is represented by an index from a look-up table, wherein the look-up table comprises a set of sign candidates (see Nien, paragraph 89).
Regarding claim 4, Nien Discloses: The method of claim 3, wherein the set of sign candidates in the look-up-tables is predefined and used for both encoder and decoder (see Nien, paragraph 88), or
wherein the set of sign candidates is dynamically generated (see Nien, paragraph 87), or
wherein at least two kinds of look-up tables are allowed for coding IBC block vector differences (see Nien, paragraph 88 and 101), or
wherein the set of sign candidates is generated based on at least one of: a cost, an error, or a difference obtained from a template matching method (see Nien, paragraph 79), or
wherein the block vector difference comprises a horizontal component and a vertical component (see Nien, paragraph 87 and 89), and
the sign of at least one of: the horizontal component or the vertical component is context coded (see Nien, paragraph 47, 87, and 89).
Regarding claim 5, Nien Discloses: The method of claim 4, wherein the look-up table is per block basis (see Nien, paragraph 87).
Regarding claim 6, Nien Discloses: The method of claim 4, wherein a first order of sign candidates in a first look-up table and a second order of sign candidates in a second look-up table are different (see Nien, paragraph 101).
Regarding claim 7, Nien Discloses: The method of claim 4, wherein the set of sign candidates is reordered based on the template matching method (see Nien, paragraph 101).
Regarding claim 8, Nien Discloses: The method of claim 4, wherein the template matching method comprises matching a first predefined group of reconstructed samples neighboring to a first block and a second predefined group of reconstructed samples neighboring to a second block (see Nien, Fig. 5 and paragraph 95-96).
Regarding claim 9, Nien Discloses: The method of claim 4, wherein the block vector difference comprises at least one of: a motion vector difference (MVD) (see Nien, paragraph 141), or a block vector difference (BVD) (see Nien, paragraph 89).
Regarding claim 10, Nien Discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein a context initialization probability of a first slice of the video unit is determined based on information of a second slice of the video unit (see Nien, paragraph 53).
Regarding claim 11, Nien Discloses: The method of claim 10, wherein the context initialization probability of the first slice is dependent on a further context initialization probability that is obtained from the second slice based on quantization parameters (QP) (see Nien, paragraph 47), or
wherein if the first slice derives a further context initialization probability from the second slice, a temporal layer of the second slice is required to be no greater than a temporal layer of the first slice (see Nien, paragraph 53).
Regarding claim 12, Nien Discloses: The method of claim 11, wherein an approach of deriving the further context initialization probability from the second slice is based on whether a QP difference between the first slice and the second slice is less than a threshold (see Nien, paragraph 104 and 176).
Regarding claim 13, Nien Discloses: The method of claim 11, wherein if the first slice derives the further context initialization probability from the second slice, the temporal layer of the second slice equals to the temporal layer of the first slice (see Nien, paragraph 84-85).
Regarding claim 14, Nien Discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein a block vector of the video unit is out of a reference region (see Nien, paragraph 92), and wherein the video unit is coded with an intra block copy (IBC) mode (see Nien, paragraph 88), and a value of the block vector is changed (see Nien, paragraph 101).
Regarding claim 15, Nien Discloses: The method of claim 14, wherein an operation is applied to the block vector candidate and to change the block vector to a valid block vector within the reference region (see Nien, paragraph 92-93), or
wherein a clipping operation is applied to the block vector to clip to the block vector within the reference region (see Nien, paragraph 92), or
wherein another block vector is used to replace the block vector (see Nien, paragraph 92-93).
Regarding claim 16, Nien Discloses: The method of claim 14, wherein the operation is based on a clipping process (see Nien, paragraph 92), or
wherein the operation is based on a scaling process, or
wherein the clipping operation clips nearest boundary of the reference region (see Nien, paragraph 92).
Regarding claim 17, Nien Discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the video unit into the bitstream (see Nien, Fig. 8), or
wherein the conversion includes decoding the video unit from the bitstream (see Nien, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, 19, and 21, claims 18, 19, and 21 are drawn to an apparatus and computer readable medium having limitations similar to the methods claimed in claim 1 treated in the above rejections. Therefore, apparatus and CRM claims 18, 19, and 21 correspond to method claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Conclusion
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 MARYAM A NASRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7158. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-8:00 M-T.
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 5712727383. 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.
/MARYAM A NASRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights