METHOD FOR DERIVING BLOCK VECTOR CANDIDATES AND DEVICE FOR SAME

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 . Acknowledgment of Amendment The objection to the specification has been withdrawn in view of Applicants amendment and remarks. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As per Applicant’s argument that Park does not disclose “configure a second motion information candidate list by sorting the one or more motion information candidates in the first motion information candidate list in ascending order based on a plurality of chroma template cost, wherein the plurality of chroma template costs are determined based on differences between chroma samples of a template of the current block and chroma samples of a template of a reference block indicated by each of the one or more motion information candidates”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs the Applicant to at least paragraphs [0093-0094], [0259-0260], [0262], [0296]. The Examiner notes that paragraph [0093-94] and equation 1 discloses the cost may be derived as a sum of absolute difference between samples corresponding to the template of the current block and the template of the candidate block. Here, i and j, represent the location (I,j) of the sample in the template of the block, Costdistortion represents the cost, Tempref represents the sample value of template of the candidate block, and Tempcur represents the sample value of the template of the current block. Differences between corresponding samples between the template of the candidate block and the template of the current block may be accumulated and the accumulation of differences may be used as the cost for the MVP candidate. Further disclosed in paragraph [0296] the top chroma cost of the MVP candidate may be derived as an SAD of the top template of the chroma block of the current block and the top template of the chroma block of the reference block for the MVP candidate. Thus, Park more than fairly discloses the highlighted limitation. 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) 21, 24, 26-27, 30, 32-33, 36, 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0296414) and in view of Zhang et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 10,326,986 B2). As per claim 21, Park teaches a video signal decoding device comprising a processor (fig.2, [0323]), wherein the processor is configured to: configure a first motion information candidate list including one or more motion information candidates based on a motion vector related to a luma component block of a current block ([0007], [0015], [0223-0225] and fig. 3, fig. 13), configure a second motion information candidate list by sorting the one or more motion information candidates in the first motion information candidate list in ascending order based on a plurality of chroma template costs ([0014], [0088-0089], [0091], [0094-0095], [0095], [0271], [0296] and fig. 3; fig. 4), wherein the plurality of chroma template cost are determined based on differences between chroma samples of a template of the current block and chroma samples of a template of a reference block indicated by each of the one or more motion information candidates ([0093-0094], [0296]), determine a motion information candidate for a chroma component block of the current block from the second motion information candidate list ([0271], and fig. 13, 15; ”the encoding apparatus may derive the reordered MVP candidate list by reordering the MVP candidates included in the MVP candidate list for the chroma block of the current block in the order of small chroma cost, derive the refine MVP candidate based on a specific MVP candidate among the MVP candidates, and derive the modified MVP candidate list for the chroma block by adding the refine MVP candidate to the reordered MVP candidate list”). Park does not explicitly disclose to reconstruct the chroma component block of the current block based on the motion information candidate. However, Zhang teaches the known concept to reconstruct the chroma component block of the current block based on the motion information candidate (col. 14 lines 5-15; col. 16 lines 48-57; col.35 lines 40-46; and claim 1, “… reconstructing an indicating identifying a selected DM of the candidate list to be used for reconstructing the chroma block; and reconstructing the chroma block according to the selected DM of the candidate list”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhang with Park for the benefit of providing improved coding efficiency and image quality. As per claim 26, Park (modified by Zhang) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 21. In addition, Park disclose wherein the motion information candidate for the chroma component block of the current block is determined by parsing a syntax element included in a bitstream ([0006]. [0097], [0270-0271], and [0277]; “encoding apparatus may generate an MVP index indicating the selected MVP candidate among the MVP candidates included in the modified MVP candidate list” ). As per claim 27, which is the corresponding encoding device comprising a processor with the limitations of the video signal decoding device as recited in claim 21, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here. As per claim 32, which is the corresponding encoding device comprising a processor with the limitations of the video signal decoding device as recited in claim 26, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 26 also applies here. As per claim 33, which is the corresponding method for generating a bitstream with the limitations of the video signal decoding device as recited in claim 21, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 21 also applies here for common subject matter. In addition, Park teaches wherein the bitstream is decoded by a decoding method (fig.2 and fig.15). As per claim 38, which is the corresponding computer-readable non-transitory medium storing a bitstream with the limitations of the video signal decoding device as recited in claim 26, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 26 also applies here. As per claim 39, which is the corresponding video signal processing method with the limitations of the video signal decoding device, as recite in claim 21. Thus, the rejection and analysis made for claim 21 also applies here. Claim(s) 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, and 37 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/02996414 A1) in view of Zhang et al., (U.S. Patent No. 10,326,986 B2) and further in view of Xu et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0120334 A1). As per claim 22, Park (modified by Zhang) teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 21. Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the luma component block of the current block is encode in an intra block copy (IBC) mode. However, Xu teaches wherein the luma component block of the current block is encoded in an intra block copy (IBC) mode ([0105]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Xu with Park (modified by Zhang) for the benefit of providing increased coding efficiency. As per claim 25, Park (modified by Zhang) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 21. Park does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the one or more motion information candidates is a block vector. However, Xu teaches wherein each of the one or more motion candidates is a block vector ([0105], [0120]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Xu with Park (modified by Zhang) for the benefit of providing increased coding efficiency. As per claim 28, which is the corresponding encoding device comprising a processor with the limitations of the video signal decoding device as recited in claim 22, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 22 also applies here. As per claim 31, which is the corresponding encoding device comprising a processor with the limitations of the video signal decoding device as recited in claim 25, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 25 also applies here. As per claim 34, which is the corresponding computer-readable non-transitory storage medium with the limitations of the video signal decoding device as recited in claim 22, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 22 also applies here. As per claim 37, which is the corresponding computer-readable non-transitory storage medium with the limitations of the video signal decoding device as recited in claim 25, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 25 also applies here. As per claim 40, which is the corresponding video signal processing method with the limitations of the video signal decoding device as recited in claim 21. Thus, the rejection and analysis made for claim 21 also applies here. Claim(s) 23, 29 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0296414 A1) in view of Zhang et al., (U.S. Patent No. 10,326,986 B2) in view of Le Leannec et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0396805 A1). As per claim 23, Park (modified by Zhang) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 21. Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the luma component block of the current block is encoded in an intra TMP (template matching prediction) mode. However, Le Leannec teaches wherein the luma component block of the current block is encoded in an intra TMP (template matching prediction) mode ([0155-0156]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Le Leannec with Park (modified by Zhang) for the benefit of providing improving the intra prediction part of video compression by employing template matching prediction, [0027]. As per claim 29, which is the corresponding encoding device comprising a processor with the limitations of the video signal decoding device as recited in claim 23, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 23 also applies here. As per claim 35, which is the corresponding computer-readable non-transitory storage medium with the limitations of the video signal decoding device as recited in claim 23, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 23 also applies here. Claim(s) 24, 30 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0296414 A1) in view of Zhang et al., (U.S. Patent No. 10,326,986 B2) in view of Zhang et al., and further in view of Li et al., (U.S. Pub. No.2024/0022739 A1). As per claim 24, Park (modified by Zhang) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 21. Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the motion information candidate for the chroma component block of the current block is a motion information candidate corresponding to a smallest cost among the plurality of chroma template costs. However Li teaches wherein the motion information candidate for the chroma component block of the current block is a motion information candidate corresponding to a smallest cost among the plurality of chroma template costs ([0031], [0215], [0231], [0251]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Li with Park (modified by Zhang) for the benefit of increasing coding efficiency. As per claim 30, which is the corresponding encoding device comprising a processor with the limitations of the video signal decoding device as recited in claim 24, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 24 also applies here. As per claim 36, which is the corresponding computer-readable non-transitory medium storing a bitstream with the limitations of the video signal decoding device as recited in claim 24, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 24 also applies here. Conclusion 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. Contact Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1821. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30 P.M.. 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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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. JESSICA PRINCE Examiner Art Unit 2486 /JESSICA M PRINCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486