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 .
Priority
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior application, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or divisional. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS)s submitted on 03/26/2026 and 06/29/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response to non-final, filed 05/11/2026, with respect to rejection of claim 20 has been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claim has been withdrawn in light of the newly presented claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Lim et al. (US20220166998) (hereinafter Lim), discloses mode dependent candidate list with corresponding maximum number of candidates. Further clarification regarding a dynamic selection of a target configuration would advance the prosecution in the instant application. Please see updated office action below.
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-2, 8-10, 13 and 16-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US20220109831) (hereinafter Jang) in view of Li et al. (US20230075788) (hereinafter Li) further in view of Lim et al. (US20220166998) (hereinafter Lim).
Regarding claim 1, Jang discloses a method for video processing, comprising:
determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, a target number for a set of motion candidates, the target number being smaller than or equal to an upper limit value [Figs. 2-3, 8-13, 0134; constituting candidate list based on RD cost].
determining, based on the target number and a fast rate distortion optimization (RDO) process, the set of motion candidates from a plurality of motion candidates for an intra block copy (IBC) based mode for coding the current video block [0059-0060, 0077-0085, 0185-0191; maximum candidates in list and IBC mode used in coding video block].
Jang discloses the limitations of the claim. However, Jang does not explicitly disclose performing the conversion based on the set of motion candidates.
Li discloses performing the conversion based on the set of motion candidates [0019-0025, 0097-0106, 0112-0121; performing coding based on a variety of schemes and modes].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Jang with the teachings of Li as stated above. By incorporating the teachings as such optimizing coding efficiency through a variety of coding schemes is achieved (see Li 0020-0023).
Jang and Li disclose the limitations of the claim. However, they do not explicitly disclose wherein the upper limit value is dependent on a target configuration of a coding process for coding the current video block.
Lim more explicitly discloses wherein the upper limit value is dependent on a target configuration of a coding process for coding the current video block [0006, 0016-0022, 0339-0344, 0384-0388, 0474-0502, 0512-0520; mode/scheme (target configuration) dependent determination of maximum number of candidates in candidate list].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Jang and Li with the teachings of Lim as stated above. By incorporating the teachings as such improved encoding efficiency in a dynamic environment is achieved (see Lim 0004-0020).
Regarding claim 2, Jang discloses wherein the IBC-based mode comprises one of the following: an IBC merge mode, an IBC template matching (TM) merge mode, or an IBC merge mode with block vector difference (MBVD) mode, or wherein the fast RDO process is performed based on a sum of absolute difference (SAD) or a sum of absolute transformed difference (SATD), or wherein the upper limit value is predefined, or wherein determining the target number comprises: determining a first number based on a sum of the number of valid candidates in an IBC merge list for the current video block and the number of valid candidates in an IBC-TM merge list for the current video block; and generating the target number based on the upper limit value and the first number [0072-0077, 0126-0134; maximum candidate list based on schemes and parameters].
Regarding claim 8, Jang discloses wherein the upper limit value is determined adaptively, or wherein the upper limit value is dependent on a resolution of a picture comprising the current video block, or wherein the upper limit value is dependent on a type of a slice comprising the current video block, or wherein the upper limit value is dependent on a coding parameter of the current video block, or wherein the upper limit value is indicated in the bitstream [0072-0077, 0126-0134; maximum candidate list based on schemes and parameters].
Regarding claim 9, Jang discloses further comprising: selecting a set of MBVD candidates from a plurality of MBVD candidates associated with a first IBC base candidate for the current video block, the number of MBVD candidates in the set of MBVD candidates being equal to N and N being a positive integer; and determining the plurality of motion candidates based on the set of MBVD candidates [0009, 0018, 0103-0104, 0121-0122; prediction mode based on a variety of parameters].
Regarding claim 10, Jang discloses wherein all of IBC base candidates for the current video block are divided into a plurality of sets of IBC base candidates [0060, 0077-0081, 0185-0191; using IBC prediction mode including parameters relating to block size and location].
Regarding claim 13, Jang discloses wherein N is predefined, or wherein N is dependent on a target configuration of a coding process for coding the current video block, or wherein N is dependent on a resolution of a picture comprising the current video block, or wherein N is dependent on a type of a slice comprising the current video block [TBLS 1-3, 0097; coding schemes including slice type].
Regarding claim 16, Jang discloses wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream [Figs. 1-3, 0042-0043, 0057-0063; coding information form bitstream].
Regarding claim 17, Jang discloses wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream [Figs. 1-3, 0042-0043, 0057-0063; coding information form bitstream].
Regarding claim 18, Jang 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 [Figs. 1-3, 0042-0043, 0057-0063; coding information form CRM and bitstream].
determining a target number for a set of motion candidates, the target number being smaller than or equal to an upper limit value [Figs. 2-3, 8-13, 0134; constituting candidate list based on RD cost].
determining, based on the target number and a fast rate distortion optimization (RDO) process, the set of motion candidates from a plurality of motion candidates for an intra block copy (IBC) based mode for coding a current video block of the video [0059-0060, 0077-0085, 0185-0191; maximum candidates in list and IBC mode used in coding video block].
performing the conversion based on the set of motion candidates [0059-0060, 0077-0085, 0185-0191; maximum candidates in list and IBC mode used in coding video block].
Jang discloses the limitations of the claim. However, Jang does not explicitly disclose performing the conversion based on the set of motion candidates.
Li discloses performing the conversion based on the set of motion candidates [0019-0025, 0097-0106, 0112-0121; performing coding based on a variety of schemes and modes].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Jang with the teachings of Li as stated above. By incorporating the teachings as such optimizing coding efficiency through a variety of coding schemes is achieved (see Li 0020-0023).
Jang and Li disclose the limitations of the claim. However, they do not explicitly disclose wherein the upper limit value is dependent on a target configuration of a coding process for coding the current video block.
Lim more explicitly discloses wherein the upper limit value is dependent on a target configuration of a coding process for coding the current video block [0006, 0016-0022, 0339-0344, 0384-0388, 0474-0502, 0512-0520; mode/scheme (target configuration) dependent determination of maximum number of candidates in candidate list].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Jang and Li with the teachings of Lim as stated above. By incorporating the teachings as such improved encoding efficiency in a dynamic environment is achieved (see Lim 0004-0020).
Regarding claim 19, Jang discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform acts comprising [Figs. 1-3, 0042-0043, 0057-0063; CRM for coding process].
determining a target number for a set of motion candidates, the target number being smaller than or equal to an upper limit value [Figs. 2-3, 8-13, 0134; constituting candidate list based on RD cost].
determining, based on the target number and a fast rate distortion optimization (RDO) process, the set of motion candidates from a plurality of motion candidates for an intra block copy (IBC) based mode for coding a current video block of the video [0059-0060, 0077-0085, 0185-0191; maximum candidates in list and IBC mode used in coding video block].
performing the conversion based on the set of motion candidates [0059-0060, 0077-0085, 0185-0191; maximum candidates in list and IBC mode used in coding video block].
Jang discloses the limitations of the claim. However, Jang does not explicitly disclose performing the conversion based on the set of motion candidates.
Li discloses performing the conversion based on the set of motion candidates [0019-0025, 0097-0106, 0112-0121; performing coding based on a variety of schemes and modes].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Jang with the teachings of Li as stated above. By incorporating the teachings as such optimizing coding efficiency through a variety of coding schemes is achieved (see Li 0020-0023).
Jang and Li disclose the limitations of the claim. However, they do not explicitly disclose wherein the upper limit value is dependent on a target configuration of a coding process for coding the current video block.
Lim more explicitly discloses wherein the upper limit value is dependent on a target configuration of a coding process for coding the current video block [0006, 0016-0022, 0339-0344, 0384-0388, 0474-0502, 0512-0520; mode/scheme (target configuration) dependent determination of maximum number of candidates in candidate list].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Jang and Li with the teachings of Lim as stated above. By incorporating the teachings as such improved encoding efficiency in a dynamic environment is achieved (see Lim 0004-0020).
Regarding claim 21, Jang discloses a method for storing a bitstream comprising [Figs. 1-3, 0042-0043, 0057-0063; coding information form bitstream].
determining a target number for a set of motion candidates, the target number being smaller than or equal to an upper limit value [Figs. 2-3, 8-13, 0134; constituting candidate list based on RD cost].
determining, based on the target number and a fast rate distortion optimization (RDO) process, the set of motion candidates from a plurality of motion candidates for an intra block copy (IBC) based mode for coding a current video block of the video [0059-0060, 0077-0085, 0185-0191; maximum candidates in list and IBC mode used in coding video block].
generating the bitstream based on the set of motion candidates [0059-0060, 0077-0085, 0185-0191; maximum candidates in list and IBC mode used in coding video block].
Jang discloses the limitations of the claim. However, Jang does not explicitly disclose generating the bitstream based on the set of motion candidates.
Li discloses generating the bitstream based on the set of motion candidates [0019-0025, 0097-0106, 0112-0121; performing coding based on a variety of schemes and modes].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Jang with the teachings of Li as stated above. By incorporating the teachings as such optimizing coding efficiency through a variety of coding schemes is achieved (see Li 0020-0023).
Jang and Li disclose the limitations of the claim. However, they do not explicitly disclose wherein the upper limit value is dependent on a target configuration of a coding process for coding the current video block.
Lim more explicitly discloses wherein the upper limit value is dependent on a target configuration of a coding process for coding the current video block [0006, 0016-0022, 0339-0344, 0384-0388, 0474-0502, 0512-0520; mode/scheme (target configuration) dependent determination of maximum number of candidates in candidate list].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Jang and Li with the teachings of Lim as stated above. By incorporating the teachings as such improved encoding efficiency in a dynamic environment is achieved (see Lim 0004-0020).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-7, 11-12 and 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior arts of record individually nor in combination do not explicitly disclose wherein all of candidate configurations of the coding process are divided into a plurality of sets of candidate configurations, and wherein the plurality of sets of candidate configurations comprise a first set of candidate configurations and a second set of candidate configurations different from the first set of candidate configurations, if the target configuration is comprised in the first set of candidate configurations, the upper limit value is equal to a first value, if the target configuration is comprised in the second set of candidate configurations, the upper limit value is equal to a second value, when taken in the environment of the independent claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 06/29/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 TALHA M NAWAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5439. The examiner can normally be reached Flex, M-R 6:30am-3:30pm; F 8:30am-12:30pm.
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, Joe G Ustaris can be reached at 571-272-7383. 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.
/TALHA M NAWAZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights