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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-33 have been cancelled. Claims 34-53 have been added. Claims 34-53 are currently pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/20/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 34-37, 41-46, 51, and 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YU et al. (Hereafter, “Yu”) [US 2020/0186815 A1].
In regards to claim 34, Yu discloses a method ([0002] This disclosure relates to the encoding and/or decoding of a video sequence, which consists of a sequence of pictures.) comprising: processing a video frame ([0027] a prediction block of one of the pictures in the video sequence); determining a reference block for a current block of the video frame ([0027] reference block); predicting the current block with an intra block copy method ([0033] In some embodiments, the process further includes generating the prediction block using the reference block and an intra block copy (IBC) tool.); deriving intra prediction information for the current block based on the reference block ([0027] determining a directional pattern in a prediction block of one of the pictures in the video sequence, wherein the determining comprises using information from a reference block from which the prediction block is generated to determine the directional pattern [0029] In some embodiments, the reference block has an intra prediction mode, and determining the directional pattern comprises or consists of determining the reference block's intra prediction mode.); selecting a transform coding for the current block based on the intra prediction information ([0027] selecting a transform set (e.g., an NSST transform set) for the prediction block based on the determined directional pattern); and applying the selected transform coding to the current block ([0027] using the transform set selected for the prediction block based on the determined directional pattern transform transforming data derived from the prediction block).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the different embodiments and examples of Yu to include the additional features for the system [Official Notice].
In regards to claim 35, the limitations of claim 34 have been addressed. Yu discloses further comprising: deriving the intra prediction information from one of the following: one or more spatial neighbor blocks of the current block; one or more spatial neighbor blocks of the reference block; one or more location inside the reference block ([0029] In some embodiments, the reference block has an intra prediction mode, and determining the directional pattern comprises or consists of determining the reference block's intra prediction mode.).
In regards to claim 36, the limitations of claim 34 have been addressed. Yu discloses wherein the intra prediction information is an intra prediction direction of a prediction unit associated with the reference block ([0027] determining a directional pattern in a prediction block of one of the pictures in the video sequence, wherein the determining comprises using information from a reference block from which the prediction block is generated to determine the directional pattern [0029] In some embodiments, the reference block has an intra prediction mode, and determining the directional pattern comprises or consists of determining the reference block's intra prediction mode.).
In regards to claim 37, the limitations of claim 34 have been addressed. Yu discloses wherein the intra prediction information is an intra prediction mode of a prediction unit associated with the reference block ([0027] determining a directional pattern in a prediction block of one of the pictures in the video sequence, wherein the determining comprises using information from a reference block from which the prediction block is generated to determine the directional pattern [0029] In some embodiments, the reference block has an intra prediction mode, and determining the directional pattern comprises or consists of determining the reference block's intra prediction mode.).
In regards to claim 41, the limitations of claim 34 have been addressed. Yu discloses wherein the selected transform is a multiple transform selection (MTS) or a low-frequency non-separable transform (LFNST) ([0020] In the current VVC, the NSST is applied only on the low-frequency transformed coefficients, i.e. top-left 4×4 transformed coefficients.).
In regards to claim 42, the limitations of claim 34 have been addressed. Yu discloses further comprising: decoding the current block from a bitstream ([0002] decoding of a video sequence, which consists of a sequence of pictures [0007] In video coding, each component is split into blocks and the coded video bit stream consist of a series of blocks.).
Claim 43 lists all the same elements of claim 34, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 34 applies equally as well to claim 43. Furthermore, regarding claim 43, Yu discloses an apparatus ([0089] apparatus 701) comprising at least one processor ([0089] processing circuitry (PC) 702, which may include one or more processors (P) 755 (e.g., one or more general purpose microprocessors and/or one or more other processors), memory including computer program code, the memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform ([0089] In embodiments where PC 702 includes a programmable processor, a computer program product (CPP) 741 may be provided. CPP 741 includes a computer readable medium (CRM) 742 storing a computer program (CP) 743 comprising computer readable instructions (CRI) 744. CRM 742 may be a non-transitory computer readable medium, such as, magnetic media (e.g., a hard disk), optical media, memory devices (e.g., random access memory, flash memory), and the like.).
Claim 44 lists all the same elements of claim 35, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 35 applies equally as well to claim 44.
Claim 45 lists all the same elements of claim 36, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 36 applies equally as well to claim 45.
Claim 46 lists all the same elements of claim 37, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 37 applies equally as well to claim 46.
Claim 51 lists all the same elements of claim 41, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 41 applies equally as well to claim 51.
Claim 53 lists all the same elements of claim 42, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 42 applies equally as well to claim 53.
Claim(s) 38-40 and 47-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Kumakura et al. (Hereafter, “Kumakura”) [US 2014/0098865 A1].
In regards to claim 38, the limitations of claim 36 have been addressed. Yu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the intra prediction direction is obtained from a list of intra prediction directions being generated from prediction units associated with the reference block.
Kumakura discloses wherein the intra prediction direction is obtained from a list of intra prediction directions being generated from prediction units associated with the reference block ([0011] a most probable mode list construction unit (602) configured to derive, from the intra prediction mode storage unit, the intra prediction modes for a plurality of reference blocks used for intra prediction in the block subject to coding, and to construct a list of most probable modes that are used as candidates of the intra prediction mode for the block subject to coding, by referring to the derived intra prediction modes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yu with the known use of a list of candidates of the intra prediction mode for the block as taught by Kumakura in order to improve coding efficiency without complicating intra prediction processing [See Kumakura].
In regards to claim 39, the limitations of claim 37 have been addressed. Yu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the intra prediction mode is obtained from a list of intra prediction modes being generated from prediction units associated with the reference block.
Kumakura discloses wherein the intra prediction mode is obtained from a list of intra prediction modes being generated from prediction units associated with the reference block ([0011] a most probable mode list construction unit (602) configured to derive, from the intra prediction mode storage unit, the intra prediction modes for a plurality of reference blocks used for intra prediction in the block subject to coding, and to construct a list of most probable modes that are used as candidates of the intra prediction mode for the block subject to coding, by referring to the derived intra prediction modes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yu with the known use of a list of candidates of the intra prediction mode for the block as taught by Kumakura in order to improve coding efficiency without complicating intra prediction processing [See Kumakura].
In regards to claim 40, the limitations of claim 38 have been addressed. Yu fails to explicitly disclose further comprising: encoding into or decoding from a bitstream an indication of a selected intra prediction direction or intra prediction mode.
Kumakura discloses further comprising: encoding into or decoding from a bitstream an indication of a selected intra prediction direction or intra prediction mode ([0011] a coding unit (604, 606, 608) configured to code the information indicating whether the intra prediction mode for the block subject to coding is probable or not probable).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yu with the signalling of information for the intra prediction mode of the block as taught by Kumakura in order to improve coding efficiency without complicating intra prediction processing [See Kumakura].
Claim 47 lists all the same elements of claim 38, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 38 applies equally as well to claim 47.
Claim 48 lists all the same elements of claim 39, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 39 applies equally as well to claim 48.
Claim 49 lists all the same elements of claim 40, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 40 applies equally as well to claim 49.
Claim 50 lists all the same elements of claim 40, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 40 applies equally as well to claim 50.
Claim(s) 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of JANG et al. (Hereafter, “Jang”) [US 2026/0025495 A1].
In regards to claim 52, the limitations of claim 43 have been addressed. Yu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the intra block copy method is an intra template matching prediction (TMP).
Jang discloses wherein the intra block copy method is an intra template matching prediction (TMP) ([0195] template matching-based intra block copy).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yu with the known template matching based intra block copy method as taught by Jang in order to improve the coding and signalling efficiency [See Jang].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kaitlin A Retallick whose telephone number is (571)270-3841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/KAITLIN A RETALLICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights