DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is being filed in response to the submission having a mailing date of (04/16/2026) 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 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 recorded 35 USC 102 rejection, was intended to reject all parallel running independent claims (1, 18, 19, 20) on record. A mistake was made, by erroneously reject claim (20) alone, and therefore the recorded 102 and 103 rejection(s) is/are withdrawn, and a new NFOA appears as following (see section 6 for details).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) that was/were submitted on (02/03/2026 and 04/28/2026) 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
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, comprise(s) - a generic codec implementation for processing a target CU and a bitstream (e.g. performing conversion of a video block …); construction of a motion candidate list, conformed by adding plurality of samples-candidates (e.g. see 8.5. specs for inter prediction and candidate list specifications, that by definition includes plurality of candidate samples in the list [VVC specs]); and an undisclosed “adjusting-process” being applied on a plurality of samples generated from the target block; (e.g. see adjustment process based on the standard “Syntax semantics” specs, where relational operators applied to syntax elements in the Table; [Chap. 7.3; 7.4].)
5.2. More specifically, and regarding Applicant’s remarks, at least VVC [Chap. 7] discloses - a generic construction of the syntax Table, for all coded bitstream(s), in accordance with the standard specs. used for process update/adjustment.
Similarly, Chen in details teaches – construction of a MV candidate list, employing plurality of processing tools such as: IBC, IBC merge and IBC-AMVP for VVC codec, in order to improve coding efficiency in the process; [Chen; page 1].)
Because no specific description of the "adjusting process” (e.g. no parameters to be adjusted disclosed in the claims; and no functional description of the cited process disclosed) presented in the body of the four (4) parallel running independent claims, the rejection uses the broadest definition of the term “adjusting” as (e.g. change/accommodate elements of an object/event to a satisfactory state; [Dictionary]).
If the claimed “adjustment” is specifically provided for maintaining the “candidate list” (not clear in the claims) during inter-prediction processing technique, as considered by the Examiner for the rejection, the VVC specs provide(s) a similar “list” construction, including updating capabilities (i.e. replacement, padding, pruning, re-ordering, shifting, rescaling, transform, etc of the listed elements); via digital operation(s) in Tables of Chap. 7, 8].
5.3. Finally, and for additional clarification of the "adjusting process”, Kang discloses a codec ecosystem (encoder and decoder (Figs. 1, 5) of the same, - able to determine/apply (see switch 120, 540) whether an available tool (intra (122, 542) and/or inter (124, 544); Figs. (1, 5) respectively) is allowed depending on the syntax element constrain, the at least one coding process/tool, on the bases of “block-by-block” and/or “sample-by-sample” associations; [Summary; Col. 33].
5.4. Analyzing the claim construction in the latest claim filing, 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.
5.5. Examiner also notes that Applicant lists plurality of well-known techniques following the passive term(s) such as “adjusting/performing/applying/reordering” 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.
5.6. 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. 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 103.
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. 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.
6.1. 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.
6.2. Claim (1 -19 and 21) 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 VVC; hereafter “Chen”) and further in view of Kang; et al (US 11,190,761 B2; hereafter “Kang”).
Claim 1. VVC discloses the invention substantially as claimed - A method for video processing, comprising: (e.g. see details for encoder [VCC; 7.4.2.3; A.1] and decoder [VCC; C.2 and C.5] techniques of the same.)
generating, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, (e.g. see encoder and decoder methodology, in accordance with VVC codec format; [Summary]);
a motion candidate list for the current video block, (e.g. see prediction (PU) and candidate list construction in at least [Chap. 7.4. and 8.5.]);
an adjusting process being applied on a plurality of samples of the current video block; (e.g. see target block processing steps via adjusting, based on information of a video block associated with block segmentation (CU), block prediction (PU), and/or information of a transform unit (TU) of the video), allocated in the “Syntax semantics” of the VVC specs; [Chap. 7.3; 7.4]);
and performing the conversion based on the motion candidate list; (e.g. coding/decoding using candidate list information; [Chap. 7.4. and 8.5.]).
The processing tools in the VVC papers, are directed to generic intra/inter prediction steps of the codec algorithm implementation, and therefore fails to provide the specific types of “prediction tools” as claimed.
For additional clarification, Chen discloses a “candidate list” construction of the same, accordance with the codec standard, that specifically supports plurality of tools, such as – (i.e. IBC, IBC merge and IBC-AMVP, etc) for VVC codec, as described in at least [Chen; page 1; sect 5]).
It is also note that the described “adjustment process” in the standard papers, is/are associated with generic execution steps of the coding process.
For additional clarification and in a similar embodiment, Keng discloses - a codec ecosystem (encoder and decoder (Figs. 1, 5) of the same, able to determine (see switch 120, 540) whether an available tool (intra (122, 542) and inter (124, 544); Figs. (1, 5) respectively) is allowed depending on the syntax element constrain, the at least one coding process tool including sample-by-sample adjustment of prediction samples; [Summary; Col. 33].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the VVC papers, employing the plurality of predictions tools (i.e. IBC AMVP, …etc), used in order to improve coding efficiency in the process; [Chen; page 1],
and further modified with the adjustment process architecture of Kang, in order to provide (e.g. additional signaling, for efficiently controlling the block-by-block and sample-by-sample processing, generated by the available coding tools; [Kang; 32: 20].)
Claim 2. VCC/Chen/Kang discloses - The method of claim 1, wherein (e.g. see details for encoder [VCC; 7.4.2.3; A.1] and decoder [VCC; C.5] techniques of the same.) the motion candidate list is different from an intra block copy (IBC) merge motion candidate list (e.g. see construction of candidate lists, including prediction tools “IBC mode”, “IBC merge mode”. Also see (e.g. see IBC AMVP mode, using the legacy and new addition to the standard; [Chen; page 1].
Claim 3. VCC/Chen/Kang discloses - The method of claim 1, wherein a motion candidate in the motion candidate list is selected from a plurality of motion candidates, (e.g. candidate list constructed using plurality of prediction tools “IBC mode”, “IBC merge” [VCC; Chen]);
samples of each of the plurality of motion candidates are adjusted in the same way as the plurality of samples of the current video block, (e.g. adjustment based on information of a video block of the video, based on syntax; [VCC; 7.3; 7.4]; [Kang; Summary; Col. 33].
or wherein a motion candidate in the motion candidate list is selected from a plurality of motion candidates, (e.g. candidate list constructed using plurality of prediction tools “IBC mode”, “IBC merge mode” [VVC/Chen]);
the adjusting process is applied on samples of each of the plurality of motion candidates, or wherein the motion candidate list is generated independently from the adjusting process; (e.g. adjustment based on information of a video block of the video, based on syntax; [VCC; Chap. 7.3; 7.4]; [Kang; Summary; Col. 33].)
Claim 4. VCC/Chen/Kang discloses - The method of claim 1, wherein the motion candidate list comprises a first motion candidate non-adjacent to the current video block. (The same rationale and motivation apply as given to Claims (1 -2) above. See also construction of candidate lists, including plurality of prediction tools “IBC mode”, “IBC merge mode”, etc; [VCC; 7.4.; 8.5.]; [Chen; page 1]).
Claim 5. VCC/Chen/Kang discloses - The method of claim 4, wherein the adjusting process is applied on the first motion candidate, or wherein samples of the first motion candidate are adjusted in the same way as the plurality of samples of the current video block, (e.g. see adjustment based on information of a video block of the video, based on syntax; [VCC; Chap. 7.3; 7.4]; [Kang; Summary; Col. 33].)
or wherein the first motion candidate is added into the motion candidate list independently from whether the adjusting process is applied on samples of the first motion candidate; (The same rationale and motivation apply as given to Claims (1 -2) above. See also construction of candidate lists, including at least one of the prediction tools “IBC mode”, “IBC merge mode”, etc; [VCC/Chen.]).
Claim 6. VCC/Chen/Kang discloses - The method of claim 1, wherein the motion candidate list comprises a motion candidate generated in accordance with a rule based on an averaging process, a clipping process or a scaling process, (e.g. see scaling factor derivation; [VCC; Chap. 8.7.4]);
or wherein the motion candidate list is an IBC merge motion candidate list or an IBC AMVP motion candidate list for the current video block. (The same rationale and motivation apply as given to Claims (1 -2) above. See also scaling steps of the same, in accordance with prediction mode implemented [VCC; Chap. 8.7.4; pag. 324]).
Claim 7. VCC/Chen/Kang discloses - The method of claim 1, wherein a further motion candidate list is generated for a further video block of the video (e.g. candidate list constructed using plurality of prediction tools “IBC mode”, “IBC merge mode” [VCC; 7.4.; 8.5.]; [Chen; page 1]). based on information regarding how to adjust samples of a video block in the adjusting process, and the further video block is different from the current video block; (e.g. adjustment based on information of a video block, based on syntax; [VCC; Chap. 7.3; 7.4]; [Kang; Summary; Col. 33]. The same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 8. VCC/Chen/Kang discloses - The method of claim 7, wherein the further motion candidate list comprises the information associated with a motion candidate in the further motion candidate list,
or wherein if the adjusting process is applied on samples of the further video block, samples of each motion candidate in the further motion candidate list are adjusted in the same way as the samples of the further video block, (e.g. adjusting, based on information of a video block, including coding unit (CU), prediction unit (PU), and/or information of a transform unit (TU)) based on “Syntax semantics”; [VVC; Chap. 7.3; 7.4]);
or wherein if the adjusting process is applied on samples of the further video block, the adjusting process is applied (e.g. adjustment based on information of a video block of the video, based on syntax; [VCC; Chap. 7.3; 7.4]); on samples of each motion candidate in the further motion candidate list, (e.g. candidate list constructed using plurality of prediction tools “IBC mode”, “IBC merge mode” [VCC; Chap. 7.4. and 8.5.]);
or wherein if the adjusting process is not applied on samples of the further video block, the adjusting process is not applied on samples of each motion candidate in the further motion candidate list, (e.g. adjustment based on video block syntax; [VCC; 7.4.; 8.5.]; [Chen; page 1]); associated with the candidate list constructed using plurality of prediction tools “IBC mode”, “IBC merge mode” [VCC; Chap. 7.4. and 8.5.]);
or wherein an adaptive reordering of merge candidates (ARMC) of the further video block is dependent on the information, or wherein an adaptive reordering of merge candidates (ARMC) is applied on the further video block independently from the information; (e.g. see adaptive ordering of the syntax [for Ex. Table 50; page 389], that by definition comprises coding unit (CU), prediction unit (PU), and/or information of a transform unit (TU) of the target block) as described in “Syntax semantics”; [Chap. 7.3; 7.4].)
Claim 9. VCC/Chen/Kang discloses - The method of claim 8, wherein the adjusting process is applied on samples of the further video block,
or wherein samples of each motion candidate in the further motion candidate list are adjusted in the same way as the samples of the further video block, or wherein samples of a motion candidate in the further motion candidate list are adjusted in a way different from the samples of the further video block; (e.g. adjustment based on information of a video block of the video, based on syntax; [VCC; 7.4.; 8.5.]; [Chen; page 1]); on samples of each motion candidate in the further motion candidate list, (e.g. candidate list constructed using plurality of prediction tools “IBC mode”, “IBC merge mode” [VCC; Chap. 7.4; 8.5.]).
Claim 10. VCC/Chen/Kang discloses - The method of claim 1, wherein a further motion candidate list is generated for a further video block of the video independently from information regarding how to adjust samples of a video block in the adjusting process, and the further video block is different from the current video block; (e.g. see candidate list independently constructed using plurality of prediction tools “IBC mode”, “IBC merge mode” [VCC; Chap. 7.4. and 8.5.]).
Claim 11. VCC/Chen/Kang discloses - The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, based on coded information of the video, cost information associated with an adjusting process in which samples of a video block are adjusted; (e.g. information associated with cost during adjustment may be “CU/TU reducing search spaces or partitions; used best single and/or combined “prediction tool, PU”; using statistical analysis like SAD/SATD for RDO (rate dist. optimization) mode selection, etc; [VCC; Chap. 7.4. and 8.5.]);
determining target information regarding the adjusting process for the current video block based on the cost information; and performing the conversion based on the target information; (e.g. adjustment based on information of a video block of the video, based on syntax; [VCC; Chap. 7.3; 7.4]; [Kang; Summary; Col. 33].
Claim 12. VCC/Chen/Kang discloses - The method of claim 11, wherein the target information comprises how to adjust a plurality of samples of the current video block, or wherein the target information comprises whether to flip a plurality of samples of the current video block horizontally or vertically. (The same rationale and motivation apply (at least one feature mapped) as given to Claims (1 -2) above. See also “flipping” technique in Figs. 7 and 8; [Chen].)
Claim 13. VCC/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, and/or 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. (The same rationale and motivation apply (i.e. wherein at least one feature mapped) as given to Claims (1 -2) above. See also ordering, shifting, transform, etc) techniques similarly implemented in at least [Chap. 7.3]).
Claim 14. VCC/Chen/Kang discloses - The method of claim 13, wherein the plurality of samples are transformed according to one of the following: a M-parameter model, M being an integer, an affine model, a linear model, or a projection model, or wherein the plurality of samples are flipped along a horizontal direction or a vertical direction; (e.g. see affine model implemented in [VVC; Chap. 7.4.]) and also similar models in [Chen; page 2].)
Claim 15. VCC/Chen/Kang discloses - The method of claim 1, wherein the adjusting process is applied based on at least one of the following: information of a video block of the video, information of a coding unit (CU) of the video, information of a prediction unit (PU) of the video, or information of a transform unit (TU) of the video, (i.e. adjusting, based on information of a video block of the video, including coding unit (CU), prediction unit (PU), and/or information of a transform unit (TU) of the video) based on “Syntax semantics”; [Chap. 7.3; 7.4]); or wherein the adjusting process is applied independently from at least one of the following: information of a tile of the video, information of a slice of the video, or information of a picture of the video; (i.e. adjusting, based on information of a video block of the video; [VCC; Chap. 7.3; 7.4]; [Kang; Summary; Col. 33].
Claim 16. VCC/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 Claims (1 -2) above. See also details for encoder [VCC; 7.4.2.3; A.1] and decoder [VCC; C.5] techniques of the same.)
Claim 17. VCC/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 Claims (1 -2) above. See also encoder [7.4.2.3; A.1] and decoder [C.5] techniques of the same in [VCC].)
Claim 18. VCC/Chen/Kang discloses - An apparatus for video processing comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, (e.g. see “storage media” methodology of the same, in accordance with the VVC codec format; [7.4.2.1]) wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising: generating, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, a motion candidate list for the current video block, an adjusting process being applied on a plurality of samples of the current video block; and performing the conversion based on the motion candidate list. (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. VCC/Chen/Kang discloses - A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform acts comprising: (e.g. see “storage media” of the same, in accordance with the VVC codec format; [7.4.2.1]) generating, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, a motion candidate list for the current video block, an adjusting process being applied on a plurality of samples of the current video block; and performing the conversion based on the motion candidate list. (Current lists all the same elements as recites in Claims (1 and 20) above, but in “CRM form” instead, and is/are therefore on the same premise.)
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.
8. 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