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 .
Response to Amendment
The assertions and arguments provided in the instant Response to Office Action of 2/3/2026 are generally rejected as fallacious. Namely:
The amendments to dependent claims 6 and 10 in no way address the outstanding rejections based on conflicting antecedent basis issues. AS previously stated, the noted feature depends from further dependent claims with multiple features in the alternative. Many of these alternatives do not introduce the recited features such that there are severe antecedent basis issues in the dependency. That is to say, each alternative recited must be consistent in regard to further recited dependent features.
The rejection of independent claim 20 is maintained in regard to claim 20 merely claiming a stored bitstream. See below.
Finally, the argument in regard to the secondary reference Choi is rejected as fallacious. Namely, contrary to the proffered argumentation, Choi identically teaches the contested feature if an intra template matching prediction mode is applied, the luma block and the chroma block of the video unit share a block vector. That is from cited paragraph, it is clear that in the context of an intra prediction, for example, IBC, the motion vector of the chroma block is derived from the associated luma block, thus identically teaching the above recited feature. Further, also contrary to the assertions proffered, a block vector and a motion vector are equivalent for types of predictions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the motion". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the certain buffer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Namely, in the above two dependent claims, the recited feature depends from further dependent claims with multiple features in the alternative. Many of these alternatives do not introduce the recited features such that there are severe antecedent basis issues in the dependency. The issues are so severe that examination is deferred until rectification because the very combination of features is wholly unclear.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zeng (US 2021/0314564).
Regarding independent claim 20, claim 20 is a product by process claim, and as such reduces to a medium storing a bitstream of a video, which is identically disclosed by Zeng. (paragraphs 0055/0057, bitstream stored on any type of data storage medium)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng in view of Choi (US 2022/0360777).
Regarding claim 1, Zeng discloses a method of video processing, (paragraph 0055/0056, camera video processing) comprising: determining, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, (paragraph 0055, processing video from camera to obtain video bitstream for transmission over network) a chroma block of the video unit based on a prediction mode of a luma block of the video unit; (paragraph 0085, prediction mode of luma block used for corresponding chroma block prediction modes requires identification of chroma block from luma block) and performing the conversion based on the chroma block. (paragraph 0086, chroma block processed into bitstream based on derived prediction mode)
Zeng is directed to derived mode per se, and fails to disclose the implementation details of wherein if an intra template matching prediction mode is applied, the luma block and the chroma block of the video unit share a block vector, or wherein the luma block and the chroma block utilize a same sample reordering approach, or wherein if the luma block is coded with a sample reordering approach, the chroma block is coded with a prediction approach that is different from the sample reordering approach of the luma block, or wherein whether the chroma block is determined based on the prediction mode of the luma block is dependent on whether at least one of: a dual tree or a local dual tree is applied.
However, Choi teaches wherein if an intra template matching prediction mode is applied, the luma block and the chroma block of the video unit share a block vector, (paragraph 0344, in intra mode, block vector for chroma is derived from luma) or wherein the luma block and the chroma block utilize a same sample reordering approach, or wherein if the luma block is coded with a sample reordering approach, the chroma block is coded with a prediction approach that is different from the sample reordering approach of the luma block, or wherein whether the chroma block is determined based on the prediction mode of the luma block is dependent on whether at least one of: a dual tree or a local dual tree is applied. (recited in the alternative, and thus subsequent features non-limiting)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that the implementation details of Choi may be applied to the DM per se of Zeng because Choi teaches its implementation details are to be applied to bitstream derived from coding for effectively transmitting, storing and reproducing information on high-resolution and high-quality images. Paragraph 0003.
In regard to the compendium features of wherein the luma block and the chroma block utilize a same sample reordering approach, or wherein if the luma block is coded with a sample reordering approach, the chroma block is coded with a prediction approach that is different from the sample reordering approach of the luma block, it is noted that this claims all forms of applied reordering, and as such is rendered obvious by reordering which is well known in the art.
Furthermore, in regard to the of wherein whether the chroma block is determined based on the prediction mode of the luma block is dependent on whether at least one of: a dual tree or a local dual tree is applied was deemed obvious in the concordant IPRP of July 10, 2023.
Regarding independent claims 18 and 19, claims 18 and 19 recite features similar to claim 1, and are therefore also anticipated by Zeng for reasons similar to claim 1. In regard to the further recited processor and storage features, Zeng identically discloses the same. (paragraph 0057, processor and varied data storages)
Regarding claim 3, Zeng is directed to derived mode per se and does not disclose the implementation details of wherein if the intra template matching prediction mode is applied to the luma block, the chroma block derive a chroma prediction based on a block vector that is determined from the luma block, or wherein if the sample reordering approach is applied to the luma block, the chroma block performs the sample reordering approach same as the luma block, or wherein the luma block is coded as an intra template matching based sample reordering, or wherein the chroma block is coded with a kind of chroma intra mode and the luma block is coded with a sample reordering approach, or wherein the chroma block is coded with a kind of chroma intra mode, and the luma block is coded with a sample reordering based intra template matching approach.
Again, Choi teaches wherein if the intra template matching prediction mode is applied to the luma block, the chroma block derive a chroma prediction based on a block vector that is determined from the luma block, (paragraph 0344, in intra mode, block vector for chroma is derived from luma, See also Zeng-paragraph 0075, and throughout-when luma/chroma have similar blocks, vectors will be same, when chroma/luma blocks vary, vectors will be derived) or wherein if the sample reordering approach is applied to the luma block, the chroma block performs the sample reordering approach same as the luma block, or wherein the luma block is coded as an intra template matching based sample reordering, or wherein the chroma block is coded with a kind of chroma intra mode and the luma block is coded with a sample reordering approach, or wherein the chroma block is coded with a kind of chroma intra mode, and the luma block is coded with a sample reordering based intra template matching approach. (recited in the alternative, and thus subsequent features non-limiting)
Same rationale for combining and motivation as for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Zeng discloses wherein a motion list of the video unit is generated in association with a reordering approach that is applied to the video unit (paragraph 0167, first motion vector list reordered into second set based on costs such as rate-distortion) or a neighboring video unit, wherein the neighboring video unit is coded prior to the video unit. (recited in the alternative, and thus subsequent features non-limiting)
Regarding claim 5, Zeng discloses wherein the reordering approach of the neighboring video unit is checked for the generation of the motion list, or wherein the reordering approach of the video unit is checked for the generation of the motion list, (this would seem to be duplicative tautology merely effecting claim 4 above, thus cost ranking is interpreted as the reordering approach; paragraph 0167, costs such as rate-distortion used for generating list) or wherein if the neighboring video unit is coded with a sample reordering approach, a motion derived from the neighboring video unit is adjusted for the generation of the motion list of the video unit, or wherein if the video unit is coded with a sample reordering approach, a motion derived from the neighboring video unit is adjusted for the generation of the motion list of the video unit, or wherein if a reordering approach of the neighboring video unit and a reordering approach of the video unit are same, a motion derived from the neighboring video unit is adjusted for the generation of the motion list of the video unit. (recited in the alternative, and thus subsequent features non-limiting)
Regarding claim 7, Zeng discloses wherein if a reordering approach of the neighboring video unit and a reordering approach of the video unit are same. (paragraph 0169, all blocks in a frame, and thus neighboring blocks share a common cost threshold)
Zeng fails to disclose a motion list of the neighboring video unit is inserted to the motion list of the video unit.
However, Choi teaches a motion list of the neighboring video unit is inserted to the motion list of the video unit. (paragraphs 0093/0117, candidate list of neighboring blocks is imported into candidate list of current block)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that candidate lists of neighboring blocks may be merged because it was well known in the art-and notoriously common in application-before the effective filing date that candidate lists of similar neighboring blocks may be applied to the instant block, and is well known as MERGE mode, as evinced by Choi.
Regarding claim 8, Zeng discloses wherein at least one new motion candidate is added to the motion list of the video unit. (paragraphs 0165/0166, at least one or a second set of prediction modes is added to the candidate list)
Regarding claim 9, Zeng identically discloses the recited, namely the alternative combination thereof wherein the at least one new motion candidate is required to have a same reordering approach as the neighboring video unit, or wherein the at least one new motion candidate is not required to have a same reordering approach as the neighboring video unit. (the alternative conditional claims both common and different reordering approaches from neighboring blocks-that is all reordering, paragraphs 0167/0169, reordering disclosed, including common reordering approaches)
Regarding claim 11, Zeng fails to disclose the recited; however, Choi teaches wherein the motion list is at least one of: a block vector list of an intra block copy (IBC) coded video unit, or a motion vector list of the IBC coded video unit. (paragraph 0201, IBC coded, and candidate list compiled for IBC coding)
Same rationale for combining and motivation as for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, Zeng fails to disclose the recited; however, Choi teaches wherein the IBC coded video unit is IBC advanced motion vector predictor (AMVP) coded, or wherein the IBC coded video unit is IBC merge coded. (paragraph 0200, IBC may be coded using merge mode)
Same rationale for combining and motivation as for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 13, Zeng discloses wherein the motion list is used for a coding mode different from IBC. (paragraph 0051, coding mode is intra, which is more expansive than IBC, and includes coding modes beyond IBC)
Regarding claim 14, Zeng discloses wherein a sorting of motion candidate indexes is dependent on at least one of: a sample reordering approach used to the neighboring video unit, or a sample reordering approach used to the video unit. (paragraph 0167, cost condition such as rate-distortion is reordering approach used for sorting set/list)
Regarding claim 15, Zeng fails to disclose the recited; however, Choi teaches wherein the video unit is coded with at least one of: an IBC AMVP mode, or a variant of IBC AMVP mode, or wherein the video unit is coded with an AMVP mode that is different from IBC AMVP mode, or wherein the video unit is coded with at least one of: an IBC merge mode, or a variant of IBC merge mode, or wherein the video unit is coded with a merge mode that is different from IBC merge mode. (paragraph 0200, IBC may be coded using merge mode)
Same rationale for combining and motivation as for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, Zeng discloses wherein the conversion includes encoding the video unit into the bitstream. (paragraph 0117, shown Figure 2, encoding a frame into a bitstream for network transmission)
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng.
Regarding claim 17, while Zeng fails to identically disclose the recited, Zeng does teach the same for reasons similar to claim 16 above, namely: wherein the conversion includes decoding the video unit from the bitstream is rendered obvious because Figure 2 shows receiving a stream from a network for coding, and paragraph 0117 teaches encoding, which as coding also necessarily teaches decoding because encoding requires corresponding decoding at arrival.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhu (US 2021/0385442) implicates coding techniques, including IBC, and the corresponding foreign application was cited in ISR as being anticipatory.
Zhang (US 2019/0158837) implicates background coding aspects.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER whose telephone number is (303)297-4401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-6 MT.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2485
/JAYANTI K PATEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2485
March 2, 2026