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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 06/05/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 or 2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 20240406436) (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 16, this claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by a method. Significantly, the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium is not implementing any method; no instructions/steps are being executed. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data output from and/or generated by a method. In other words, these claims are directed to a mere machine-readable medium storing data content (a bitstream generated by a method).
Applicant seeks to patent the storage of a bitstream in the abstract. In other words, the claim seeks to patent the content of the information (bitstream with video content) and not the process itself. Moreover, this stored bitstream does not impose any definitive physical organization on the data as there is no functional relationship between the bitstream and the storage medium. In conclusion, this claim is directed to mere data content (bitstream generated by the recited method) stored as a bitstream on a computer-readable storage medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, this claim is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. Therefore, this claim is anticipated by Kim paragraph(s) 29, which discloses a computer readable medium storing a coded bitstream.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: independent claim 1 contains the limitations regarding generating vector difference candidates by combining the magnitude of a vector difference with possible sign combinations of the vector difference, generating vector candidates by summing the vector predictor and vector difference candidates, generating reference block candidates corresponding to the vector candidates, and adjusting templates of the reference block candidates based on a magnitude of the vector difference, and calculating a template matching cost between the adjusted templates of the current block and reference block candidates. At the time of the effective filing date of the application, these limitations had not been fully anticipated and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine elements of the prior art to meet this limitation. Independent claim(s) 11 is/are allowed for the same reasons as claim 1. The dependent claims are allowed for the reasons concerning the independent claim(s).
The closest prior art, Kim et al. (US 20240406436), Wang et al. (US 20250142106), Lim (US 20250142111), Lo et al. (US 20260019626), Xiu et al. (US 20200374513), Moon et al. (US 20210274214), Chen et al. (US 20240015333), Li et al. (US 20240137520), Jang et al. (US 20260025495), Tsukuba (US 20210266525), Hsu (US 20190289317), Chen et al. (US 20250211767), Deng et al. (US 20250030867) either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious the above described limitations. While the prior art teaches methods of template matching, and also being aware of a determined sign of the vector differences, the prior art does not teach generating vector difference candidates by combining the magnitude of a vector difference with possible sign combinations of the vector difference, generating vector candidates by summing the vector predictor and vector difference candidates, generating reference block candidates corresponding to the vector candidates, and adjusting templates of the reference block candidates based on a magnitude of the vector difference, and calculating a template matching cost between the adjusted templates of the current block and reference block candidates. Notably, since the prior art concerning template matching contemplates the sign of a motion vector difference as a factor that needs to be determined, the prior art teaches away from conducting the exercise of performing calculations that create multiple possible candidates of the sign and going through the process of generating vector candidates, reference block candidates, and template adjustments. Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date of the application, these limitations had not been fully anticipated and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine elements of the prior art to meet this limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew D Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-3527. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30am - 5:30pm 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, 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.
/MATTHEW DAVID KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights