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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Newly added claims 21 – 23 recite the limitation “wherein the locations…are at predefined intervals relative to the location of the first reference block.” Support for this limitation is not provided in the originally filed specification. At most, the specification provides for a predefined list of candidate magnitudes of the candidate block vector differences and a predefined list of candidate directions of the candidate block vector differences [see, e.g. pars. 207 – 211 of the originally filed specification], but not predefined intervals relative to the location of the first reference block as claimed. A review of PCT application US2023/027151 and U.S. provisional application 63/359,142, the applications upon which the instant application properly claims priority, also did not provide support for the newly added claims. The limitations of claims 21 – 23, therefore, constitute new matter. For purposes of examination on the merits, examiner interprets the limitations of claims 21 – 23 to mean a predefined list of magnitudes and a predefined list of directions relative to the location of the first reference block.
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)(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) 1-4, 7 – 11, 14 – 17, and 20 - 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nien et al. (US 2023/0217013) (hereinafter Nien).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Nien teaches a method, a decoder comprising one or more processors and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the decoder to perform the method (e.g. Fig. 1, element 124, and par. 41: depicting and describing a decoder, the decoder comprising a processor and non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform a method), and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that when executed by one or more processors of a decoder cause the decoder to perform the method (e.g. Fig. 1, element 124, and par. 41: depicting and describing a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform a method), the method comprising:
searching, for a template of a first reference block and based on a template of a current block, a reconstructed reference region defined relative to the current block to determine a block vector predictor (BVP) indicating a location of the first reference block (e.g. Fig. 3, element 330, and pars. 75 – 80: depicting and describing that the system determines a block vector predictor (BVP) searching a reconstructed region relative to the current block for a template of a reference block [block copy candidate] based on a template of the current block, the block vector predictor indicating a location of a first reference block);
performing refinement on the BVP based on determining a plurality of candidate vectors indicating locations at and around the location of the first reference block (e.g. Fig. 3, element 340, and Fig. 5, and pars. 81 – 93: depicting and describing that the system determines a block vector difference of the BVP, the block vector difference indicating a reference block of a plurality of reference blocks relative to the intra block predictor to be used for reconstruction of the current block, wherein the intra block predictor is the equivalent of the first reference block indicated by the block vector predictor, and wherein determining a block vector difference of the BVP is the equivalent of performing refinement on the BVP);
receiving, from a bitstream, an indication of a candidate vector of the plurality of candidate vectors (e.g. pars. 86 – 89: describing that the system obtains syntax elements from the bitstream, the syntax elements providing an indication of the block vector difference that indicates a reference block of the plurality of reference blocks, wherein the block vector difference is the equivalent of the candidate vector); and
decoding the current block based on a second reference block at a location indicated by the candidate vector (e.g. Fig. 3, element 370, and pars. 108 – 112: depicting and describing that the system reconstructs the current block based on a reference block indicated by the indication in the bitstream, wherein the reference block indicated by the indication in the bitstream is the equivalent of the second reference block indicated by the candidate vector, and wherein reconstructing the current block is the equivalent of decoding the current block).
Turning to claims 2, 9, and 16, Nien teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, as discussed above. Nien further teaches:
wherein the searching the reconstructed reference region to determine the BVP comprises:
determining a plurality of differences for a plurality of templates in the reconstructed reference region, wherein, for each template of the plurality of templates, a difference is determined between the template of the current block and the each template (e.g. pars. 77 – 80: describing that the system determines a prediction cost value for each of the plurality of copy template regions compared to a template region of the current block, wherein the prediction cost value is the equivalent of the differences); and
selecting the template of the first reference block based on the plurality of differences (e.g. pars. 77 – 80: describing that the system selects a block copy candidate based on the cost values of the plurality of copy template regions, wherein the block copy candidate is the equivalent of the first reference block).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Nien teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, as discussed above. Nien further teaches:
wherein the performing the refinement on the BVP comprises:
determining, for each respective candidate vector of the plurality of candidate vectors, determining a cost of a template of a reference block indicated by the respective candidate, wherein the cost comprises a difference between the template of the reference block and the template of the current block (e.g. Fig. 5 and pars. 94 – 97: depicting and describing that the system calculates cost values between the template of the current block [5000 of block 500] and each of the plurality of candidate temple regions [regions 5210, 5220, 5230, 5240 of blocks 521, 522, 523, and 524); and
selecting one or more candidate vectors of the plurality of candidate vectors based on the costs, wherein the indication of the candidate vector indicates one of the one or more candidate vectors (e.g. par. 105: describing that the system selects one or more vector candidates based on the calculated cost values).
Turning to claims 4 and 11, Nien teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8, respectively, as discussed above. Nien further teaches:
wherein the indication of the candidate vector comprises an index of the candidate vector (e.g. pars. 85 – 89: describing that the system indicates a block vector difference using an index, wherein the block vector difference if the equivalent of the candidate vector).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20, Nien teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, as discussed above. Nien further teaches:
wherein the decoding the current block comprises adding the second reference block to a residual of the current block received in the bitstream (e.g. pars. 111 and 112: describing that the system reconstructs the current block by adding the determined reference block to residuals of the current block received from the bitstream, wherein the determined reference block is the equivalent of the second reference block).
Turning to claims 21, 22, and 23, Nien teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, as discussed above. Nien further teaches:
wherein the locations, indicated by the plurality of candidate vectors, are at predefined intervals relative to the location of the first reference block (e.g. Figs. 5 and 6, and pars. 86 – 91: depicting and describing that the magnitude and direction of vector candidate differences are predefined in relation to an indicated initial reference block, the magnitude and direction of a vector candidate indicating a position of each candidate reference block with respect to the initial reference block [see, e.g. par. 86: describing that locations of difference block candidates are determined based on a magnitude and a direction relative to the intra bock predictor, wherein the intra block predictor is the equivalent of the initial reference block], wherein a set of magnitudes and a set of directions of vector candidate difference being predefined is the equivalent of the locations of candidate reference blocks relative to the first reference block is predefined).
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.
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) 5, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nien et al. (US 2023/0217013) (hereinafter Nien) as applied to claims 4, 11, and 15 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2021/0329251) (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 18, Nien teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4, claims 8 and 11, and claim 15, respectively, as discussed above. Nien further teaches:
wherein the indication of the candidate vector comprises:
an index to a magnitude in a list of magnitude values (e.g. par. 88: describing that the index is an index of a magnitude in a list of magnitudes),
wherein the candidate vector is determined based on the magnitude and the direction (e.g. pars. 85 – 89: describing that the block vector difference is determined based on a magnitude and a direction).
Nien does not explicitly teach:
wherein the indication of the candidate vector further comprises an index to a direction in a list of directions.
Chen, however, teaches a decoder, method of decoding, and non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that when executed by one or more processors of a decoder cause the decoder to perform the method:
wherein the indication of the candidate vector further comprises an index to a direction in a list of directions (e.g. Fig. 9, element S902, and pars. 289 – 293: depicting and describing that the system obtains an index to a direction of a vector difference from a list of directions).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Nien by adding the teachings of Chen in order for the indication of the candidate vector to further comprise an index to a direction in a list of directions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification reduces redundancy and improves coding efficiency (Chen, e.g. par. 5: describing a desire to reduce redundancy and improve coding efficiency).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-3700. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 5 PM AWS.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
SHANIKA M. BRUMFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD/Examiner, Art Unit 2487
/Dave Czekaj/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2487