DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is being filed in response to the submission having a mailing date of (04/06/2026) in which a (3) month Shortened Statutory Period for Response has been set.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgements
3. Upon entry, claims (1 -19 and 21) appear pending for examination, of which (1, 18, 19 and 21) being the four (4) parallel running independent claims on record. Claim (20) was cancelled and claim (21) newly added.
Examiner thanks’ Applicant representative (Atty. C. Donofrio; Reg. No, 80115) for the new list of amendments provided, for the detailed remarks and clarifications, and for the cooperation expediting the case.
The previously presented Double Patent rejection is intended to hold the rejection in abeyance, until allowable subject matter is identified in the Instant application. The rejection is maintained.
The previously presented rejection under 35 USC 101 is withdrawn in view of the amendments presented.
The previously presented rejection under 35 USC 112 is withdrawn in view of the amendments presented.
The previously presented rejection under 35 USC 103 is maintained. New ground added in view of the new amendments provided.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) that was/were submitted on (02/17/2026 and 06/18/2026) is/are PARTIALLY in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, being considered by the Examiner.
4.1. Multiple entries from the IDS have been discarded, for failure to cite the relevant pages in the publication. Each of the submitted publications must comply with the 37 CFR 1.98 provisions, in order evaluate the corresponded information listed, to be considered by the Office. See also MPEP [37 CFR 1.98(b); - Each publication must be identified by publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, and date and place of the publication.]
Response to arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, but they’re not persuasive, for at least the following reasons:
5.1. The undersigned considers that the no allowable subject matter has been yet identified in the claims. The claims language of the (4) parallel running independent claims, comprises - a generic codec implementation (e.g. performing conversion of a video block), including a syntax associated with the block, in accordance with the standard (e.g. a syntax element in the bitstream), indicating whether an adjusting process from a set of processes is applied, to plurality of samples associated with the video block; as for example recites in the language of Claim 1.
5.2. The recorded NFOA rejection was essentially based on the VVC specification papers (Chap. 7), using at least one of the implemented processes (i.e. palette mode process) for mapping example of the claimed steps.
More specifically, and regarding Applicant’s arguments, at least Chap.7 of the VVC discloses - a generic construction of the syntax Table, for all coded bitstream(s), in accordance with the standard specs; [page 33; Chap. 7].
Because no specific description of the "adjusting process” presented in the body of the four (4) parallel running independent claims,
_ the recorded rejection uses the broadest generic definition of the term “adjusting” as (e.g. change/accommodate elements of an object/event to a satisfactory state; [Dictionary]);
_ the recorded rejection mapped the claim(s) language using at least one of the exemplary processes in the papers, (i.e. in this case, associated with “palette mode process”, 7.3. -7.4; a HEVC/VVC supported processing tool, for coding improvement, coding efficiency and coding adjustment, based on requirements.
_ where values & sampling of the target block are generated and signaled, employing digital block operations (such as ordering, shifting, transform, etc), in [VVC; 7.3-7.4].
5.3. Analyzing the claim construction, it is valid to point out that in order to prove patentability at the PTO, the claim language must present a clear defined functionality, and an algorithm execution, that would produce a certain effect and/or result, by executing a series of acts/steps, able to transform and reduce them to a different state of thing. The presented list of claims, (as currently stated) fails this requirement.
5.4. Examiner also notes that Applicant lists plurality of well-known techniques following the passive term(s) such as “indicating/applying/reordering …etc” that passively indicates that a function is performed without requiring the/any functional structure/methodology as a limitation on the claim itself. It is clear that such claim language does not further limit the claims, and does not require a separate reason for rejection; (see MPEP 2111.04). The clause may be given some weight to the extent it provides "meaning and purpose” to the claimed invention, but not when “it simply expresses the intended result” of the invention.
5.5. Regarding the rationale and motivation for the associated amended features/steps presented, please refer to Rejection section (6) for details.
Finally, the Office considers Applicant's arguments not persuasive, as applied rejection on record as a whole reads on the claimed construction, establishing the "Prima Facie" case of equivalent disclosures, on the basis of a person of ordinary skills in the art would have recognized the similar elements shown, or the same structural similarities shown, wherein such structure/methodology performs the same identical functions in substantially the same way, able to produce the same identical results.
_ See [MPEP – 2183]. Making a Prima Facie Case of Equivalence).
_ See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566]; …when similar structure applies;
_ See Kemco Sales, Inc. vs. Control Papers., 208 F.3d 1352, 54 USPQ2d 1308] …when identical functionality is specified in the claim, in substantially the same way.
Claim Rejection section
35 USC 102.
6. 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.
6.1. 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.
6.2. Claims (1 -4) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the standard papers of the Versatile video coding, ITU-T H.266; -edition 1.0; hereafter “VVC”)
Claim 1. (Original) VVC discloses the invention substantially as claimed - A method for video processing, comprising: (e.g. encoding/decoding video data, in accordance with the VVC codec) performing a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, (e.g. a codec methodology of the same [Summary]) wherein a first syntax element is comprised in the bitstream (e.g. see “CU syntax” and “Syntax semantics” descriptions in [Chap. 7.3 and 7.4]);
and indicates whether an adjusting process is applied on a plurality of samples of the current video block; (e.g. see block adjustment of the same, signaled/indicated in the bitstream via constrain information and semantics [Chap. 7.3 and 7.4]).
Claim 2. VCC discloses - The method of claim 1, 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; (e.g. see DPB construction, where digital operations (ordering, shifting, transform, etc) for block samples, are similarly implemented; [Chap. 7.3]).
Claim 3. VCC discloses - The method of claim 1, wherein the current video block is coded with a prediction scheme; (e.g. see coding tree semantics [7.4.] and the associated prediction scheme in at least [Chap. 7.4.].)
Claim 4. VCC discloses - The method of claim 3, wherein the prediction scheme comprises one of the following: intra template matching, intra block copy (IBC) advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP), or IBC merge; (see at least IBC mode in [Chap. 7.4; page 43], and IBC merge mode, also signaled syntax of the same in at least [Chap. 7.4; page 112].).
35 USC 103
8.3. Claims (5 -7) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Versatile video coding, ITU-T H.266; - edition 1.0”; hereafter “VVC”), in view of Chen; et al. (Intra Block Copy Mirror Mode for Screen Content Coding in Versatile Video Coding; “Chen”).
Claim 5. VVC discloses - The method of claim 1, wherein a first indication is comprised in the bitstream and indicates that the current video block is coded with intra template matching, or wherein a second indication is comprised in the bitstream and indicates that the current video block is coded with IBC AMVP, or wherein a third indication is comprised in the bitstream and indicates that the current video block is coded with IBC merge; (e.g. see at least IBC mode in [Chap. 7.4; page 43], and IBC merge mode, also signaled syntax of the same in at least [Chap. 7.4; page 112].).
It is note however, lack of details for IBC AMVP in the edition of the standard. For the purpose of additional clarification and in the same field of endeavor Chen in details teaches TM matching, IBC, IBC merge and IBC-AMVP for VVC codec, as described in at least [Chen].)
Chen specifically teaches - IBC AMVP mode, using the legacy and new addition to the standard; [page 1-2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the papers of VVC specs, with the IBC AMVP mode implementation of Chen, (e.g. in order to lower complexity and improve coding efficiency in the process; [Chen; page 1].)
Claim 6. VVC /Chen discloses - The method of claim 1, wherein a second syntax element indicating how to adjust the plurality of samples is comprised in the bitstream, or wherein a single syntax element indicating a type of the adjusting process is comprised in the bitstream, or wherein if a first indication indicates that the current video block is coded with intra template matching, a single syntax element indicating a type of the adjusting process is comprised in the bitstream, or wherein if a second indication indicates that the current video block is coded with IBC AMVP, a single syntax element indicating a type of the adjusting process is comprised in the bitstream, or wherein if a third indication indicates that the current video block is coded with IBC merge, a single syntax element indicating a type of the adjusting process is comprised in the bitstream, or wherein the first syntax element further indicates how to adjust the plurality of samples, or wherein a first value of the first syntax element indicates that the adjusting process is not applied on the plurality of samples, a second value of the first syntax element indicates that a first type of adjusting process is applied on the plurality of samples, and a third value of the first syntax element indicates that a second type of adjusting process is applied on the plurality of samples, or wherein at least one syntax element associated with the adjusting process is context coded; (e.g. the same rationale and motivation apply as given to Claims (1 and 6), where at least one of the claimed constrains is/are meet the claim requirements.)
Claim 7. VVC /Chen discloses - The method of claim 6, wherein a context used for coding the at least one syntax element is dependent on coding information of at least one neighboring block or at least one neighboring sample of the current video block. (e.g. see analogous syntax in VVC [Chap. 8.5.2.10]. In addition, see Fig. 8; where neighbor blocks used for prediction; [Chen; sect. 2]; same motivation applies herein.)
8.4. Claims (8 -19, 21) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the NPL combination of “VVC”/“Chen” and further in view of Kang; et al (US 11190761 B2; hereafter “Kang”).
Claim 8. (Currently Amended) VVC /Chen discloses - The method of claim 1, wherein the adjusting process is a first adjusting process, and the method further comprises:
determining, based on at least one video block of the video, information regarding an a second adjusting process in which samples of a video block are adjusted, the at least one video block being coded before the current video block; and performing the conversion based on the information. VVC /Chen discloses (e.g. encoding and/or decoding in accordance with the VVC format; comprising at least one syntax element is dependent on at least one coding process for block adjustment; [VVC/Chen]).
Even when one skilled in the art would consider replicate/scaling the first adjustment when plurality of adjustments is/are required, It is note that VVC/Chen fails to disclose a second and/or scaling adjustment of the same).
For the purpose of additional clarification and in a similar field of endeavor, Kang discloses a codec ecosystem (encoder in Fig. 1 and decoder in Fig. 5) of the same, able to determine whether (see switch 120, 540) any available tool prediction (intra (122, 542) and/or inter (124, 544); Figs. 1 and 5 respectively) is allowed by a first syntax element from a bitstream; and whether plurality of second syntax element for each of the at least one coding process/tool from the bitstream depending on the syntax element, the at least one coding process/tool including sample-by-sample adjustment of the prediction samples; [Kang; Summary; Col. 33; Claim 1].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the papers of VVC/Chen with the scaling adjusting process of Kang, in order to provide (e.g. signaling technique for efficiently controlling the block-by-block and sample-by-sample basis, generated by the available coding tools; [Kang; 32: 20].)
Claim 9. (Currently Amended) VVC/Chen/Kang discloses - The method of claim 8, wherein the information comprises at least one of the following:
whether the second adjusting process is applied on a plurality of samples of the current video block, or how to adjust the plurality of samples, or wherein if the second adjusting process is applied on samples of the at least one video block, the second adjusting process is applied on the plurality of samples of the current video block, or if the second adjusting process is applied on samples of the at least one video block, the second adjusting process is applied on the plurality of samples of the current video block, and the plurality of samples of the current video block are adjusted in the same way as the samples of the at least one video block, (e.g. see second adjusting process of the same in [Kang; Col. 33])
or wherein the at least one video block comprises at least one of the following: a neighboring video block adjacent to the current video block, or a neighboring video block non-adjacent to the current video block; (e.g. see processing of the same for neighboring blocks of the target block; Figs. (4 & 10); [Kang]; the same motivation applies herein.
Claim 10. VVC/Chen/Kang discloses - The method of claim 8, wherein the at least one video block is comprised in a history-based motion table for the current video block; (e.g. see history-based motion table in [VVC; 8.5.2.], and similar in [Chen; sect. 4]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 11. VVC/Chen/Kang discloses - The method of claim 10, wherein the history-based motion table is a history-based motion vector prediction (HMVP) table; (e.g. see history-based motion table in [VVC; 8.5.2.], and similar in [Chen; sect. 4]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 12. VVC/Chen/Kang discloses - The method of claim 8, wherein the at least one video block is a temporal motion candidate for the current video block, or wherein the at least one video block is comprised in an IBC merge candidate list or an IBC AMVP candidate list for the current video block, or wherein the at least one video block is comprised in a motion candidate list generated for the current video block, or wherein the current video block is coded with one of the following: intra template matching, IBC AMVP, or IBC merge. (The same rationale/motivation apply as given to Claims (1 and 5) above.)
Claim 13. VVC/Chen/Kang discloses - The method of claim 1, wherein coding information of the current video block is stored for determining a context of a syntax element associated with the adjusting process. (The same rationale/motivation apply as given to Claims (1 and 5) above. See syntax flag signaled [Chap. 7.3-7.4]).
Claim 14. VVC/Chen/Kang discloses - The method of claim 13, wherein a coding information of a video block comprises at least one of the following: information regarding whether the adjusting process is applied on samples of the video block, information regarding how to adjust the samples of the video block, a block availability, a prediction mode for the video block, information regarding whether the video block is merge coded, or information regarding whether the video block is IBC coded. (The same rationale and motivation apply as given to Claims (1 and 5) above.)
Claim 15. VVC/Chen/Kang discloses - The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of samples comprises one of the following: reconstruction samples of the current video block, original samples of the current video block, or prediction samples of the current video block. (The same rationale and motivation apply as given to Claims (1 and 5) above, where one of the cited elements comprised in the sample.)
Claim 16. VVC/Chen/Kang discloses - The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream. (The same rationale and motivation apply as given to Claim 1 above. See encoder/decoder methodology for VVC codec)
Claim 17. VVC/Chen/Kang discloses - The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream. (The same rationale and motivation apply as given to Claim 1 above.)
Claim 18. VVC/Chen/Kang discloses - 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: performing a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, wherein a first syntax element is comprised in the bitstream and indicates whether an adjusting process is applied on a plurality of samples of the current video block. (Current lists all the same elements as recites in Claim 1 above, but in “Apparatus form” instead, and is/are therefore on the same premise.)
Claim 19. VVC/Chen/Kang discloses - A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform acts comprising: performing a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, wherein a first syntax element is comprised in the bitstream and indicates whether an adjusting process is applied on a plurality of samples of the current video block. (Current lists all the same elements as recites in Claim 1 above, but in “CRM form” instead, and is/are therefore on the same premise. See also analogous storage medium implemented by the standard in at least [Chap. 7.4.2.1.].)
Claim 20. (Cancelled).
Claim 21. (New) VVC/Chen/Kang discloses - A method for storing a bitstream of a video, comprising: generating the bitstream for a current video block of the video, wherein a first syntax element is comprised in the bitstream and indicates whether an adjusting process is applied on a plurality of samples of the current video block; and storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. (Current lists all the same elements as recites in Claim 1 above, but in “storing method form” instead, and is/are therefore on the same premise.)
Prior Art Citations
7. The following List of prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is/are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
7.1. Patent documentation:
US 10,165,289 B2 Minoo; et al. H04N19/59; H04N19/70; H04N19/182;
US 11,184,637 B2 Li; Bin et al. H04N19/186; H04N19/117; H04N19/587;
US 11,375,212 B2 Rusanovskyy; et al. H04N19/117; H04N19/186; H04N19/103;
US 11,190,761 B2 Kang; Je Won et al. H04N19/107; H04N19/122; H04N19/132;
US 11,153,579 B2 Ramasubramonian; et al. H04N19/98; H04N19/124; H04N19/186;
7.2. Non-Patent documentation:
_ Intra Block Copy Mirror Mode for Screen Content Coding in VVC; Chen – 2021.
_ T-REC-H.266 Versatile Video coding - ver-1 – 2020.
CONCLUSIONS
8. In view of the above Examiner’s considerations, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.1 36(a). See also See MPEP 5 706.07(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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS PEREZ-FUENTES (luis.perez-fuentes@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 270 -1168. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, WILLIAM VAUGHN can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272 -3922. 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, 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 system, please call (800) 786 -9199 (USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272 -1000.
/LUIS PEREZ-FUENTES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481.
Prosecution Insights