DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim under PCT CN 2022 103905 filed on 7/5/2022.
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) 1, 3, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al, US 2020/0252605 A1 (Xu).
Regarding Claim 1, Xu discloses a method of video processing, comprising: determining, during a conversion between a target block of a video and a bitstream of the target block, that a combination of an intra block copy (IBC) and an intra prediction (CIBCIP) mode is applied to the target block; obtaining an IBC predicted signal and an intra predicted signal based on the CIBCIP mode; deriving a prediction or a reconstruction of the target block by combining the IBC predicted signal and the intra predicted signal; and performing the conversion based on the prediction or the reconstruction of the target block (Xu [0022] – the processing circuitry determines, based on the decoded prediction information, a prediction mode flag, and the IBC prediction mode usage flag. Then, the processing circuitry selects a prediction mode from the IBC prediction mode, an intra prediction mode and an inter prediction mode based on a combination of the prediction mode flag and the IBC prediction mode usage flag; [0118] – the IBC prediction mode usage flag “pred_mode_ibc_flag” is signaled or inferred at a block level based on a combination of the signaling of the skip mode flag (cu_skip_flag), the prediction mode flag (pred_mode_flag) and the tile group type of current tile group (tile_group_type); [0147] – the prediction mode of the current coding block is jointly decided by pred_mode_ibc_flag, cu_skip_flag, pred_mode_flag and tile_group_type. In some examples, no initialization of the prediction mode of the current coding block (e.g., initialization of CuPredMode[x][y] for x=x0 . . . x0+cbWidth−1 and y=y0 . . . y0+cbHeight−1) is performed, pred_mode_ibc_flag, cu_skip_flag, pred_mode_flag and tile_group_type are decoded or inferred, and then the prediction mode is directly determined based on a combination of pred_mode_ibc_flag, cu_skip_flag, pred_mode_flag and tile_group_type) [the Xu reference teaches the ability to have a combination of an IBC and intra prediction mode].
Regarding Claim 3, Xu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the intra prediction is generated by at least one of: an angular intra-prediction, a direct currency (DC), a planar, a cross-component prediction (CCLM),a multi-model CCLM,a left CCLM, or an above CCLM (Xu [0011], Fig.1 – Depicted in the lower right is a subset of nine predictor directions known from H.265's 33 possible predictor directions (corresponding to the 33 angular modes of the 35 intra modes).
Regarding Claim 17, Xu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the target block into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the target block from the bitstream (Xu [0019] – Decoder uses video bitstream).
With regard to claim 18, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 1 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 1 is applied to claim 18.
With regard to claim 19, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 1 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 1 is applied to claim 19.
With regard to claim 20, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 1 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 1 is applied to claim 20.
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) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, in view of Sim et al, US 2017/0134726 A1.
Regarding Claim 4, Xu discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above.
However, Xu does not explicitly disclose a wherein an IBC merge mode is used in the CIBCIP mode, or wherein an IBC advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) mode is used in the CIBCIP mode, or wherein at least one of the followings used to obtain the IBC predicted signal is indicated: a merge index indicating a BV candidate in an IBC merge list, or a BVP index indicating a BV predictor in an IBC AMVP list, or wherein a construction of IBC merge list used in the CIBCIP mode is same as that used in an IBC mode, or the construction of IBC merge list used in the CIBCIP mode is different from that used in the IBC mode, or wherein a construction of IBC AMVP list used in the CIBCIP mode is same as that used in an IBC mode, or the construction of IBC AMVP list used in the CIBCIP mode is different from that used in the IBC mode, or wherein a first number of BV candidates in a first IBC merge list that is used for the CIBCIP mode is less than or equal to a second number of BV candidates in a second IBC merge list that is used for an IBC mode, and the first number and the second number are integer numbers that are larger than 0, and the first number is less than or equal to the second number, or wherein a first number of BV candidates in a first IBC AMVP list that is used for the CIBCIP mode is less than or equal to a second number of BV candidates in a second IBC AMVP list that is used for an IBC mode, and the first number and the second number are integer numbers that are larger than 0, and the first number is less than or equal to the second number, or wherein a template matching is used to derive or refine a BV that is used to obtain the IBC predicted signal.
Sim teaches a method wherein a template matching is used to derive or refine a BV that is used to obtain the IBC predicted signal (Sim [0151] – The conditions 1000 may include items related to whether a slice including the current CU has been intra coded, whether the current CU has been encoded in a template matching-based prediction mode (intra block copy: IBC)).
Therefore, it 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 to modify Xu to have template matching used to derive or refine a BV that is used to obtain the IBC predicted signal, as taught by Sim. One would be motivated as the template matching-based prediction can be used to locate or predict another block.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5-16 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR SHAHNAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-0707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Joseph 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.
/AMIR SHAHNAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483