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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 26 June 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Presented arguments have been fully considered, but are rendered moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment(s) initiated by the applicant(s).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,16,17,18,19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by VVC (filed in 6/26/2026 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, VVC meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A method for video processing, comprising:
performing a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video (i.e. encoder converts video into a bitstream) [summary],
wherein a syntax element associated with adjustment of samples of the current video block is coded with a bypass mode or a context model (i.e. block adjustment performed using CU syntax and syntax semantics. These are signaled in the bitstream. Bypass flag can be signaled) [7.3-7.4, 9.3.4.1-9.3.4.2].
wherein the adjustment comprises at least one of the following: reordering the samples, flipping the samples, shifting the samples, rotating the samples, or transforming the samples (i.e. block adjustment performed using CU syntax and syntax semantics. These are signaled in the bitstream. dpb_max_num_reorder_pics, leftshift, rightshift, amvrshift) [7.3-7.4,8.5.2.9, 9.3.4.1-9.3.4.2],
wherein the syntax element indicates at least one of the following: whether the samples of the current video block are adjusted, or how to adjust the samples of the current video block (i.e. block adjustment performed using CU syntax and syntax semantics. These are signaled in the bitstream. adjustedRefPaletteIndex is a syntax for adjustments) [7.3-7.4,7.4.12.5 9.3.4.1-9.3.4.2].
Regarding claim 4, VVC meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the context model is determined based on at least one neighboring video block of the current video block (i.e. context syntax derived using left and above (neighboring) syntax elements) [9.3.4.2.2]
Regarding claim 5, VVC meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 4, wherein the context model is determined based on coding information of the at least one neighboring video block (i.e. context syntax derived using left and above (neighboring) syntax elements) [9.3.4.2.2].
Regarding claim 6, VVC meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 4, wherein the at least one neighboring video block comprises at least one of the following: an above neighboring video block of the current video block, a left neighboring video block of the current video block, an above-right neighboring video block of the current video block, or a left-bottom neighboring video block of the current video block (i.e. context syntax derived using left and above (neighboring) syntax elements) [9.3.4.2.2].
Regarding claim 7, VVC meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein an index of the context model is determined based on coding information of an above neighboring video block of the current video block and coding information of a left neighboring video block of the current video block (i.e. context syntax derived using left and above (neighboring) syntax elements) [9.3.4.2.2].
Regarding claim 8, VVC meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 5, wherein the coding information comprises at least one of the following: an availability, a prediction mode, a prediction scheme, or a scheme for adjusting samples (i.e. context model of neighboring blocks would be part of the prediction scheme) [9.3.4.2.2].
Regarding claim 16, VVC meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream (i.e. encoding processing produces a bitstream) [summary, pages 1-2].
Regarding claim 17, VVC meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream (i.e. decoder decodes the bitstream into a video) [summary, pages 1-2].
Claim 18 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
Claim 19 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
Claim 20 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
Claim 21 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, VVC meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein an index of the context model is determined based on coding information of an above neighboring video block of the current video block and coding information of a left neighboring video block of the current video block, wherein the coding information comprises a scheme for adjusting samples (i.e. context model index determined using neighboring block information and a scheme) [9.3.4.2.2].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 of this title, 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.
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.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VVC in view of Kang US 20210266531.
Regarding claim 9, VVC do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein if samples of a further video block of the video different from the current video block are disallowed to be adjusted, a further syntax element associated with adjustment of the samples of the further video block is not indicated in the bitstream for the further video block, or if the samples of the further video block are allowed to be adjusted, the further syntax element is indicated in the bitstream for the further video block
However, in the same field of endeavor Kang discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein if samples of a further video block of the video different from the current video block are disallowed to be adjusted, a further syntax element associated with adjustment of the samples of the further video block is not indicated in the bitstream for the further video block, or if the samples of the further video block are allowed to be adjusted, the further syntax element is indicated in the bitstream for the further video block (i.e. Another aspect of the present disclosure relates to a technique for signaling of high-level syntaxes for controlling on/off of various tools described above. The above-described affine motion prediction, sample-by-sample adjustment for affine motion prediction samples, adaptive motion vector resolution, and illumination compensation are coding tools used to improve the video encoding efficiency. However, for specific content such as, for example, screen content, the aforementioned various coding tools may not contribute to improving compression performance. Accordingly, a coding unit based signaling of whether to apply each coding tool or a coding unit based decision of whether to apply each coding tool may rather degrade coding efficiency or increase computational complexity. The present disclosure provides a signaling technique for efficiently controlling the above-described coding tools.) [199,204].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of VVC with Kang to have the following: if samples of a further video block of the video different from the current video block are disallowed to be adjusted, a further syntax element associated with adjustment of the samples of the further video block is not indicated in the bitstream for the further video block, or if the samples of the further video block are allowed to be adjusted, the further syntax element is indicated in the bitstream for the further video block
It would be advantageous because "The present disclosure provides a signaling technique for efficiently controlling the above-described coding tools.” [199].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of VVC with Kang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Kang meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein coding information of the current video block is stored for coding a target video block of the video different from the current video block (i.e. coding information from a neighboring block is used to decode a current block.) [47].
Regarding claim 11, Kang meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 10, wherein the current video block is neighboring to the target video block, or wherein the current video block is adjacent to the target video block, or wherein the current video block is at a left side of the target video block, or the current video block is at a top side of the target video block, or the current video block is at a top-right side of the target video block, or the current video block is at a left-bottom side of the target video block, or wherein the current video block is non-adjacent to the target video block (i.e. context model can be chosen based on statistics of above and left neighboring coding information. This would be done for the current block as well and would be used for blocks that are coded later. If the blocks are processed in a normal order, either the top or left block would be the previously coded block to the current block. Fig. 8 shows an example where the neighboring blocks are to the left or top of the current block.) [113; fig. 8].
Regarding claim 12, Kang meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 10, wherein the target video block is coded with samples of the target video block being adjusted, or wherein the target video block is coded without samples of the target video block being adjusted, or wherein the current video block is coded with the samples of the current video block being adjusted, or wherein the current video block is coded without the samples of the current video block being adjusted (i.e. Another aspect of the present disclosure relates to a technique for signaling of high-level syntaxes for controlling on/off of various tools described above. The above-described affine motion prediction, sample-by-sample adjustment for affine motion prediction samples, adaptive motion vector resolution, and illumination compensation are coding tools used to improve the video encoding efficiency. However, for specific content such as, for example, screen content, the aforementioned various coding tools may not contribute to improving compression performance. Accordingly, a coding unit based signaling of whether to apply each coding tool or a coding unit based decision of whether to apply each coding tool may rather degrade coding efficiency or increase computational complexity. The present disclosure provides a signaling technique for efficiently controlling the above-described coding tools.) [199,204].
Regarding claim 13, Kang meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 10, wherein the coding information of the current video block comprises at least one of the following: a dimension of the current video block, a width of the current video block, a height of the current video block, a coordinate of a top-left position of the current video block, a coordinate of a center position of the current video block, information regarding whether the samples of the current video block are adjusted, information regarding how to adjust the samples of the current video block, or motion information for the current video block (i.e. Another aspect of the present disclosure relates to a technique for signaling of high-level syntaxes for controlling on/off of various tools described above. The above-described affine motion prediction, sample-by-sample adjustment for affine motion prediction samples, adaptive motion vector resolution, and illumination compensation are coding tools used to improve the video encoding efficiency. However, for specific content such as, for example, screen content, the aforementioned various coding tools may not contribute to improving compression performance. Accordingly, a coding unit based signaling of whether to apply each coding tool or a coding unit based decision of whether to apply each coding tool may rather degrade coding efficiency or increase computational complexity. The present disclosure provides a signaling technique for efficiently controlling the above-described coding tools.) [199,204].
Regarding claim 14, Kang meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 13, wherein the motion information comprises at least one of the following: a motion vector for the current video block, a block vector for the current video block, or a reference index for the current video block (i.e. reference index used for coding and decoding) [69].
Regarding claim 15, Kang meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 10, wherein the coding information of the current video block is stored in at least one buffer, or wherein the coding information of the current video block is stored in a history motion vector table (i.e. buffer stores the video sequence which would contain coding information) [66].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED T WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 - 3:00 Mountain.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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.
/Jared Walker/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights