DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim’s preamble recites “decoding an image,” but there is no affirmative step of decoding an image in the body of the claim.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim’s preamble recites “encoding an image,” but there is no affirmative step of encoding an image in the body of the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US PG Publication 2023/0034458).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen (US PG Publication 2023/0034458) discloses a method for decoding an image (decode the video data to recover the video pictures [0057]), the method comprising:
partitioning a current block (CU can be split [0144]; in a GPM-applied CU [0150]) into a first partition and a second partition (two geometric shaped partitions [0144]) along a split boundary (partitioning manners differentiated by angles and/or edges [0144]);
determining whether an intra block copy mode (IBC mode [0153], [0154]) is applied to the first partition (each geometric partition can be coded based on IBC [0153]; for the GPM-applied CU [0150] first partition) based on a first partitioning area flag (intra flag is true indicating intra prediction mode is used, or IBC flag signaled to indicate whether IBC is used [0154]);
when the intra block copy mode is not applied to the first partition (when the intra-IBC configuration is used [0154] for the GPM-applied CU [0150]; when first geometric partition is coded based on intra, intra flag is true [0154] for the first partition), determining that the intra block copy mode is applied to the second partition (intra flag is false and IBC flag is signaled to indicate IBC is used [0154] for the second partition) …, and
when the intra block copy mode is applied to the first partition (when the IBC-IBC configuration is used [0154] for the GPM-applied CU [0150], IBC flag indicates IBC for the first partition; geometric partition can be coded based on IBC [0153]), determining whether the intra block copy mode is applied to the second partition (if IBC is used for the geometric partition [0154] for the second partition; each partition has an intra/inter flag and an IBC flag [0154]) based on a parsed second partitioning area flag (intra flag is false, IBC flag is signaled to indicate whether IBC is used or not [0154] for the second partition);
among the first and second partition (in a GPM-applied CU [0150]), for a partition to which the intra block copy mode is applied (if IBC is used for the geometric partition [0154]), determining a block vector (BV information of the IBC can be signaled, IBC block with a BV [0154]) that represents a reference block (the intra copied block [0154]; the prediction information that the intra prediction unit 552 has generated [0700]) within a block vector search range (intra coding frame [0178]) of the current block (current block 1504 [0178]), and predicting the partition (the intra copied block can be applied to predict the geometric partition [0154]; adding to the output sample information as provided by the scaler/inverse transform unit [0070]) based on the reference block (the intra copied block [0154]; the prediction information that the intra prediction unit 552 has generated [0700]) referenced by the block vector (BV [0154]);
among the first and second partition (in a GPM-applied CU [0150]), for a partition to which the intra block copy mode is not applied (if the intra prediction mode is chosen for a partition [0150]), predicting the partition based on an intra prediction mode (a prediction signal is generated from neighboring samples from a specified index of intra prediction mode [0150]).
Chen does not disclose, but Chang (US PG Publication 2022/0329822) teaches when the [] mode is not applied to the first partition (If the first flag is true, then a second flag is signaled to indicate whether TM is applied to the first GPM partition, and the second flag is false [0166]), determining that the [] mode is applied to the second partition (TM is applied to the second partition [0166]) without parsing a second partitioning area flag (the third flag is not signaled and it is inferred to be true [0166]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to apply the signaling scheme used in the TM refinement signaling in a GPM-applied CU of Chang, to the IBC mode a GPM-applied CU of Chen, because Chang suggests that it results in fewer bits being transmitted in the bitstream to signal the same information, resulting in better compression without quality degradation, improving the system.
Regarding Claim 4, Chen (US PG Publication 2023/0034458) discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second partition applies one of an inter prediction mode, an intra prediction mode, an intra block copy mode, and an intra template matching mode (a prediction type comprising one of intra prediction, inter prediction, and intra block copy (IBC) [0023]).
Regarding Claim 5, Chen (US PG Publication 2023/0034458) discloses the method of claim 4, wherein irrespective of whether the intra block copy mode is applied to the first partition, a prediction method applied to the second partition is determined (each partition has an intra/inter flag and an IBC flag [0154]).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen (US PG Publication 2023/0034458) discloses the method of claim 4, wherein when the intra block copy mode is applied to the first partition and the intra prediction mode is applied to the second partition (IBC-intra for the geometric partitions of the GPM [0160]), the second partition is predicted by one of regular intra prediction methods (partition is predicted from neighboring samples using intra prediction mode [0154]).
Regarding Claim 8, Chen (US PG Publication 2023/0034458) discloses the method of claim 4, wherein when the intra block copy mode is applied to both the first partition and the second partition (IBC-IBC [0160), the block vector of the first partition and a block vector of the second partition are configured not to be identical to each other (the block vector BV0 and the block vector BV1 may not be the same [0178).
Regarding Claim 9, Chen (US PG Publication 2023/0034458) discloses the method of claim 1, wherein when the intra block copy mode is applied to the first partition and an inter prediction mode is applied to the second partition (INTER_IBC mode [0163]), the block vector of the first partition is derived based on a motion vector of the second partition (MV or BV information can be used as a predictor for a regular inter merge list or an IBC merge list respectively [0163]).
Regarding Claim 10, Chen (US PG Publication 2023/0034458) discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising:
acquiring a differential vector representing difference between the block vector of the first partition and the motion vector of the second partition (coded motion vector delta [0119]; motion vector difference [0122]),
wherein the block vector of the first partition is derived based on the motion vector of the second partition and the differential vector (MV or BV information can be used as a predictor for a regular inter merge list or an IBC merge list respectively [0163]).
Regarding Claim 11, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13, Chen (US PG Publication 2023/0034458) discloses a method for transmitting a bitstream (transmission to other terminal device coded video data, stream of video pictures [0057]), which is generated by a method for encoding an image (coded video data [0057]), the method for transmitting the bitstream comprising:
encoding an image based on the method for encoding an image (code video data [0057]); and
transmitting (transmission to other terminal device [0057]) a bitstream (stream [0057]) including the encoded image (video pictures, coded video bitstream [0057]).
The remainder of Claim 13 is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 8/12/2026 have been considered but do not apply to the combination of references applied in this office action. In this office action, an inference technique from Chang (US PG Publication 2022/0329822) applied to TM refinement in a GPM-applied CU, is relied upon, in combination with the existing primary reference Chen (US PG Publication 2023/0034458).
Note that Claims 11 and 13 are broader than Claim 1 because Claims 11 and 13 do not include the step of not-encoding the second area partition flag when the first partition is not-IBC.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20260006244 A1 - whether to use the vertical prediction mode to replace the IBC mode is determined
US 20250063155 A1 – chroma IBC can be replaced by CCLM
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHADAN E HAGHANI whose telephone number is (571)270-5631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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.
/SHADAN E HAGHANI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights