DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 01/03/2025. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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
Acknowledgement is made of applicant's claim for foreign application number WO PCT/CN2022/103765 filed on 07/4/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/03/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
In determining patentability of an invention over the prior art, all claim limitations have been considered and interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. See MPEP § 2111.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Pruter, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). See MPEP § 2111.
(i) All claim limitations have been considered. Additionally, all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claims against the prior art. The following language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2106 II C.
(ii) Language in a method claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but the expression does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the claim. Language in a system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. In other words, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
(iii) Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if, may, might, can could”, as optional language. As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “wherein, whereby”, that fail to further define the steps or acts to be performed in method claims or the discrete physical structure required of system claims.
USPTO personnel should begin claim analysis by identifying and evaluating each claim limitation. For processes, the claim limitations will define steps or acts to be performed. For products, the claim limitations will define discrete physical structures or materials. Product claims are claims that are directed to either machines, manufactures or compositions of matter. See MPEP § 2106 II C.
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope. It is this subject matter that must be examined. As a general matter, the grammar and intended meaning of terms used in a claim will dictate whether the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. The following are examples of language that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim:
(A) statements of intended use or field of use,
(B) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses,
(C) “wherein” clauses, or
(D) “whereby” clauses.
See MPEP § 2106 II C.
Exemplary claim 6 recites the term "if" (i.e. "wherein if a flip type of the neighboring block is horizontal flip, the single direction is a horizontal direction, or wherein if a flip type of the neighboring block is vertical flip, the single direction is a vertical direction.”). The term “if” is a conditional statement which does not require the claim functionality to occur, but merely indicates that the function may or may not be performed if something occurs. Examiner advises Applicant to amend the claim to explicitly require the claim to perform the claimed functionality.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 2025/0254326) in view of Li (US 20170070748 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lim discloses the following claim limitations: a method for video processing, comprising: determining, for a conversion between a current block of a video and a bitstream of the video, motion information of the current block based on motion information of a neighboring block of the current block and an intra block copy merge mode with block vector difference (IBC-MBVD) mode (Lim, paragraph 13 discloses a method for decoding video data comprises decoding coding information for a chroma block from a bitstream, determining that the chroma block is decoded using intra-block copy based on the coding information; in addition paragraphs 792-793 discloses Intra-block copy AMVP mode—In this mode, the encoder and decoder, as in the advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) mode of the inter-prediction mode, encode/decode a motion vector difference (MVD) of a block vector… Intra-block copy AMVR mode—In this mode, the encoder and decoder, as in the AMVR mode of the inter-prediction mode, encode/decode the MVD of a block vector at one resolution adaptively selected from among a plurality of resolutions. The intra-block copy AMVR mode is a secondary mode and may be used with other modes, such as the intra-block copy AMVP mode. For example, intra-block copy AMVR mode may presuppose using the intra-block copy AMVP mode).
Lim does not explicitly disclose the following: the neighboring block being coded with a reconstruction-reordered intra block copy (RRIBC) mode; and performing the conversion based on the motion information of the current block.
However, in the same field of endeavor Li discloses the neighboring block being coded with a reconstruction-reordered intra block copy (RRIBC) mode; and performing the conversion based on the motion information of the current block (Li, paragraph 3 discloses Intra block copy (“BC”) is a prediction mode under development for H.265/HEVC extensions, paragraph 16 discloses “A corresponding decoder receives from a bitstream encoded data including a flag indicating that a current block (e.g., coding unit, prediction unit) in a picture is encoded using intra BC prediction in skip mode.”).
It would have been obvious to one the ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Lim with Li to create the IBC system of Lim with decoding intra blocks using BC.
The reasoning being is to improve coding efficiency for intra-BC-predicted blocks (Li, paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 2, Lim and Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the motion information of the neighboring block is used as a base motion candidate for the IBC-MBVD mode (Lim, paragraph 13 discloses a method for decoding video data comprises decoding coding information for a chroma block from a bitstream, determining that the chroma block is decoded using intra-block copy based on the coding information; in addition paragraphs 792-793 discloses Intra-block copy AMVP mode—In this mode, the encoder and decoder, as in the advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) mode of the inter-prediction mode, encode/decode a motion vector difference (MVD) of a block vector… Intra-block copy AMVR mode—In this mode, the encoder and decoder, as in the AMVR mode of the inter-prediction mode, encode/decode the MVD of a block vector at one resolution adaptively selected from among a plurality of resolutions. The intra-block copy AMVR mode is a secondary mode and may be used with other modes, such as the intra-block copy AMVP mode. For example, intra-block copy AMVR mode may presuppose using the intra-block copy AMVP mode).
Regarding claim 3, Lim and Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the motion information of the current block comprises: adjusting the motion information of the neighboring block based on a motion adjustment process; and generating the motion information of the current block based on the adjusted motion information and the IBC-MBVD mode, the adjusted motion information being used as a base motion candidate for the IBC-MBVD mode (Lim, paragraph 13 discloses a method for decoding video data comprises decoding coding information for a chroma block from a bitstream, determining that the chroma block is decoded using intra-block copy based on the coding information; in addition paragraphs 792-793 discloses Intra-block copy AMVP mode—In this mode, the encoder and decoder, as in the advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) mode of the inter-prediction mode, encode/decode a motion vector difference (MVD) of a block vector… Intra-block copy AMVR mode—In this mode, the encoder and decoder, as in the AMVR mode of the inter-prediction mode, encode/decode the MVD of a block vector at one resolution adaptively selected from among a plurality of resolutions. The intra-block copy AMVR mode is a secondary mode and may be used with other modes, such as the intra-block copy AMVP mode. For example, intra-block copy AMVR mode may presuppose using the intra-block copy AMVP mode).
Regarding claim 4, Lim and Li discloses the method of claim 3, wherein a motion shift is added to the motion information of the current block in the motion adjustment process, or wherein the motion adjustment process is dependent on at least one of the following: a flip type of the current block, a flip type of the neighboring block, a position of the current block, a position of the neighboring block, a coordinate of the current block, or a coordinate of the neighboring block (Li, paragraph 141 When only vertical flipping is enabled, a flag value can indicate whether or not vertical flipping is used during intra BC prediction. When only horizontal flipping is enabled, a flag value can indicate whether or not horizontal flipping is used during intra BC prediction. When both vertical flipping and horizontal flipping are enabled, two flag values can indicate whether or not flipping is used during intra BC prediction for horizontal and vertical flipping, with each flag indicating a decision for a direction of flipping. Or, a single syntax element with multiple values can be used (e.g., with possible values indicating vertical flipping only, horizontal flipping only, both horizontal and vertical flipping, or no flipping). The same motivation that was utilized in claim 1 applies as well to claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Lim and Li discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the adjustment is performed along a single direction in the motion adjustment process (Li, paragraph 8 discloses encoded data includes an indication whether an intra BC prediction region for a current block (e.g., coding unit, prediction unit) in a picture is flipped relative to a reference region in the picture. For example, the indication is one or more syntax elements in the bitstream, which can be signaled for the current block or for a larger block that includes the current block. The syntax element(s) can be flags, each flag indicating a decision for a direction of flipping. The syntax element(s) can be jointly coded with another syntax element or separately signaled. The same motivation that was utilized in claim 1 applies as well to claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Lim and Li discloses the method of claim 5, wherein if a flip type of the neighboring block is horizontal flip, the single direction is a horizontal direction, or wherein if a flip type of the neighboring block is vertical flip, the single direction is a vertical direction (Li, paragraph 141 When only vertical flipping is enabled, a flag value can indicate whether or not vertical flipping is used during intra BC prediction. When only horizontal flipping is enabled, a flag value can indicate whether or not horizontal flipping is used during intra BC prediction. When both vertical flipping and horizontal flipping are enabled, two flag values can indicate whether or not flipping is used during intra BC prediction for horizontal and vertical flipping, with each flag indicating a decision for a direction of flipping. Or, a single syntax element with multiple values can be used (e.g., with possible values indicating vertical flipping only, horizontal flipping only, both horizontal and vertical flipping, or no flipping). The same motivation that was utilized in claim 1 applies as well to claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Lim and Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a flip type of the current block is determined independently from a flip type of the neighboring block (Li, paragraph 141 When only vertical flipping is enabled, a flag value can indicate whether or not vertical flipping is used during intra BC prediction. When only horizontal flipping is enabled, a flag value can indicate whether or not horizontal flipping is used during intra BC prediction. When both vertical flipping and horizontal flipping are enabled, two flag values can indicate whether or not flipping is used during intra BC prediction for horizontal and vertical flipping, with each flag indicating a decision for a direction of flipping. Or, a single syntax element with multiple values can be used (e.g., with possible values indicating vertical flipping only, horizontal flipping only, both horizontal and vertical flipping, or no flipping). The same motivation that was utilized in claim 1 applies as well to claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Lim and Li discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the flip type of the current block is no-flip (Li, paragraph 141 single syntax element with multiple values can be used (e.g., with possible values indicating vertical flipping only, horizontal flipping only, both horizontal and vertical flipping, or no flipping). The same motivation that was utilized in claim 1 applies as well to claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Lim and Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein if the current block is coded with the RRIBC mode, a first set of MBVD offsets is allowed to be added to a base motion candidate for the IBC-MBVD mode, if the current block is coded without the RRIBC mode, a second set of MBVD offsets is allowed to be added to the base motion candidate, if a base motion candidate for the IBC-MBVD mode is coded with the RRIBC mode, a first set of MBVD offsets is allowed to be added to the base motion candidate, if the base motion candidate is coded without the RRIBC mode, a second set of MBVD offsets is allowed to be added to the base motion candidate, and wherein the first set of MBVD offsets is the same as the second set of MBVD offsets. (The term “if” is a conditional statement which does not require the claim functionality to occur, but merely indicates that the function may or may not be performed if something occurs. Examiner advises Applicant to amend the claim to explicitly require the claim to perform the claimed functionality; (Li, paragraph 3 discloses Intra block copy (“BC”) is a prediction mode under development for H.265/HEVC extensions, paragraph 16 discloses “A corresponding decoder receives from a bitstream encoded data including a flag indicating that a current block (e.g., coding unit, prediction unit) in a picture is encoded using intra BC prediction in skip mode.”). The same motivation that was utilized in claim 1 applies as well to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Lim and Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a set of MBVD offsets allowed to be added to a base motion candidate for the IBC-MBVD mode is dependent on a flip type of the current block or a flip type of the base motion candidate (Li, paragraph 141 When only vertical flipping is enabled, a flag value can indicate whether or not vertical flipping is used during intra BC prediction. When only horizontal flipping is enabled, a flag value can indicate whether or not horizontal flipping is used during intra BC prediction. When both vertical flipping and horizontal flipping are enabled, two flag values can indicate whether or not flipping is used during intra BC prediction for horizontal and vertical flipping, with each flag indicating a decision for a direction of flipping. Or, a single syntax element with multiple values can be used (e.g., with possible values indicating vertical flipping only, horizontal flipping only, both horizontal and vertical flipping, or no flipping). The same motivation that was utilized in claim 1 applies as well to claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Lim and Li discloses the method of claim 10, wherein if the flip type of the current block is horizontal flip, the set of MBVD offsets comprises a set of horizontal MBVD offsets, or wherein if the flip type of the current block is vertical flip, the set of MBVD offsets comprises a set of vertical MBVD offsets, or wherein if the flip type of the base motion candidate is horizontal flip, the set of MBVD offsets comprises a set of horizontal MBVD offsets, or wherein if the flip type of the base motion candidate is vertical flip, the set of MBVD offsets comprises a set of vertical MBVD offsets (The term “if” is a conditional statement which does not require the claim functionality to occur, but merely indicates that the function may or may not be performed if something occurs. Examiner advises Applicant to amend the claim to explicitly require the claim to perform the claimed functionality; Li, paragraph 141 When only vertical flipping is enabled, a flag value can indicate whether or not vertical flipping is used during intra BC prediction. When only horizontal flipping is enabled, a flag value can indicate whether or not horizontal flipping is used during intra BC prediction. When both vertical flipping and horizontal flipping are enabled, two flag values can indicate whether or not flipping is used during intra BC prediction for horizontal and vertical flipping, with each flag indicating a decision for a direction of flipping. Or, a single syntax element with multiple values can be used (e.g., with possible values indicating vertical flipping only, horizontal flipping only, both horizontal and vertical flipping, or no flipping). The same motivation that was utilized in claim 1 applies as well to claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Lim and Li discloses the method of claim 11, wherein a vertical component of each of the set of MBVD offsets is equal to zero, or wherein a horizontal component of each of the set of MBVD offsets is equal to zero, or wherein a vertical component of each of the set of MBVD offsets is equal to zero, or wherein a horizontal component of each of the set of MBVD offsets is equal to zero (Li, paragraph 127 discloses encoder and decoder can use block flipping in intra BC prediction to improve coding efficiency. For example, the reference region (880) can be flipped horizontally and vertically, as shown in the flipped reference region (881) of FIG. 8d. In this example, when the reference region (880) is flipped horizontally and vertically, the flipped reference region (881) exactly matches the current block (860). (That is, the intra BC prediction region is perfect for the current block (880), and the residual includes only zero-value samples). The same motivation that was utilized in claim 1 applies as well to claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Lim and Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein RRIBC-coded motion candidates for the IBC-MBVD mode and non-RRIBC-coded motion candidates for the IBC-MBVD mode are grouped into a single set of motion candidates (Li, paragraph 3 discloses Intra block copy (“BC”) is a prediction mode under development for H.265/HEVC extensions, paragraph 16 discloses “A corresponding decoder receives from a bitstream encoded data including a flag indicating that a current block (e.g., coding unit, prediction unit) in a picture is encoded using intra BC prediction in skip mode; in addition (Lim, paragraph 165 discloses Motion vector candidate: A motion vector candidate may be a block that is a prediction candidate or the motion vector of the block that is a prediction candidate when a motion vector is predicted. [0166] A motion vector candidate may be included in a motion vector candidate list. [0167] Motion vector candidate list: A motion vector candidate list may be a list configured using one or more motion vector candidates. [0168] Motion vector candidate index: A motion vector candidate index may be an indicator for indicating a motion vector candidate in the motion vector candidate list. Alternatively, a motion vector candidate index may be the index of a motion vector predictor. [0169] Motion information: Motion information may be information including at least one of a reference picture list, a reference image, a motion vector candidate, a motion vector candidate index, a merge candidate, and a merge index, as well as a motion vector, a reference picture index, and an inter-prediction indicator). The same motivation that was utilized in claim 1 applies as well to claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Lim and Li discloses the method of claim 13, wherein an index for a motion candidate for the IBC-MBVD mode is coded based on the single set of motion candidates, or wherein motion candidates in the single set of motion candidates are ordered based on template costs of the motion candidates (Lim, paragraph 165 discloses Motion vector candidate: A motion vector candidate may be a block that is a prediction candidate or the motion vector of the block that is a prediction candidate when a motion vector is predicted. [0166] A motion vector candidate may be included in a motion vector candidate list. [0167] Motion vector candidate list: A motion vector candidate list may be a list configured using one or more motion vector candidates. [0168] Motion vector candidate index: A motion vector candidate index may be an indicator for indicating a motion vector candidate in the motion vector candidate list. Alternatively, a motion vector candidate index may be the index of a motion vector predictor. [0169] Motion information: Motion information may be information including at least one of a reference picture list, a reference image, a motion vector candidate, a motion vector candidate index, a merge candidate, and a merge index, as well as a motion vector, a reference picture index, and an inter-prediction indicator).
Regarding claim 15, Lim and Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein if the current block is coded with RRIBC, a flip type of the current block is not equal to no-flip, if the current block is coded without RRIBC, the flip type of the current block is equal to no-flip (Li, paragraph 141 When only vertical flipping is enabled, a flag value can indicate whether or not vertical flipping is used during intra BC prediction. When only horizontal flipping is enabled, a flag value can indicate whether or not horizontal flipping is used during intra BC prediction. When both vertical flipping and horizontal flipping are enabled, two flag values can indicate whether or not flipping is used during intra BC prediction for horizontal and vertical flipping, with each flag indicating a decision for a direction of flipping. Or, a single syntax element with multiple values can be used (e.g., with possible values indicating vertical flipping only, horizontal flipping only, both horizontal and vertical flipping, or no flipping). The same motivation that was utilized in claim 1 applies as well to claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Lim and Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein an adjustment is applied on reconstruction samples of the neighboring block in the RRIBC mode, and the adjustment comprises at least one of the following: reordering the reconstruction samples, flipping the reconstruction samples, shifting the reconstruction samples, rotating the reconstruction samples, or transforming the reconstruction samples, or wherein the current block is one of the following: a color component, a sub-picture, a slice, a tile, a coding tree unit (CTU), a CTU row, groups of CTU, a coding unit (CU), a prediction unit (PU), a transform unit (TU), a coding tree block (CTB), a coding block (CB), a prediction block (PB), a transform block (TB), a sub-block of a video block, or a sub-region within a video block, or wherein whether to and/or how to apply the method is indicated at one of the following: a sequence level, a group of pictures level, a picture level, a slice level, or a tile group level, or wherein whether to and/or how to apply the method is indicated in one of the following: a sequence header, a picture header, a sequence parameter set (SPS), a video parameter set (VPS), a dependency parameter set (DPS), a decoding capability information (DCI), a picture parameter set (PPS), an adaptation parameter sets (APS), a slice header, or a tile group header (Li, paragraph 141 When only vertical flipping is enabled, a flag value can indicate whether or not vertical flipping is used during intra BC prediction. When only horizontal flipping is enabled, a flag value can indicate whether or not horizontal flipping is used during intra BC prediction. When both vertical flipping and horizontal flipping are enabled, two flag values can indicate whether or not flipping is used during intra BC prediction for horizontal and vertical flipping, with each flag indicating a decision for a direction of flipping. Or, a single syntax element with multiple values can be used (e.g., with possible values indicating vertical flipping only, horizontal flipping only, both horizontal and vertical flipping, or no flipping). The same motivation that was utilized in claim 1 applies as well to claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Lim and Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current block into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the current block from the bitstream (Lim, paragraph 13 discloses a method for decoding video data comprises decoding coding information for a chroma block from a bitstream, determining that the chroma block is decoded using intra-block copy based on the coding information). The same motivation that was utilized in claim 1 applies as well to claim 17.
With regard to claim 18, claim 18 discloses all the same features and elements to claim 1 as outlined above. Therefore, the same rationale that was utilized in claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 18. In addition, Lim, paragraph 730 discloses processing unit 1610 may be a Central Processing Unit (CPU) or a semiconductor device for executing processing instructions stored in the memory 1630 or the storage 1640. The processing unit 1610 may be at least one hardware processor.
With regard to claim 19, claim 19 discloses all the same features and elements to claim 1 as outlined above. Therefore, the same rationale that was utilized in claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 19. In addition, Lim, paragraph 14 discloses non-transitory computer-readable storage medium stores instructions.
Examiner’s note:
Machine readable media: when determining the scope of a claim directed to a computer-readable medium containing certain programming, the examiner should first look to the relationship between the programming and the intended computer system. Where the programming performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated, a functional relationship will be found. For instance, a claim to computer-readable medium programmed with attribute data objects that perform the function of facilitating retrieval, addition, and removal of information in the intended computer system, establishes a functional relationship such that the claimed attribute data objects are given patentable weight. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035. However, where the claim as a whole is directed to conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system, and/or the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. For example, a claim to a memory stick containing tables of batting averages, or tracks of recorded music, utilizes the intended computer system merely as a support for the information. Such claims are directed toward conveying meaning to the human reader rather than towards establishing a functional relationship between recorded data and the computer. See section 2111.05 of MPEP.
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 Comer (US 2005/0185937).
Regarding claim 20, Lim discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for video processing, wherein the method comprises: determining motion information of a current block of the video based on motion information of a neighboring block of the current block and an IBC-MBVD mode, the neighboring block being coded with an RRIBC mode; and generating the bitstream based on the motion information of the current block (Examiner’s note: the “non-transitory computer readable medium” does not establish a functional relationship between the recorded bitstream data and the computer readable medium, therefore the claim will be interpreted as a tangible device being able to store bitstream data; Comer, paragraph 29 discloses the base data bitstream can be recorded onto the DVD as a base layer and assigned a stream identification of 0xE0… the enhancement data bitstream can be recorded onto the DVD as an enhancement layer and assigned a stream identification of 0xBF, 0xFA, 0xFB, 0xFC, 0xFD or 0xFE).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY T JEAN BAPTISTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5PM EST.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/JERRY T JEAN BAPTISTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481