DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a first office action in response to application no. 19/163,812 filed on September 9th 2025, in which claims 1-17 are presented for examination.
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 interpretation
2. Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” Id. However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. Id.
Claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method, the method comprising: obtaining, based on a mapping model, a prediction block of a target block by performing a prediction of the target block; and reconstructing, based on the prediction block, the target block, wherein the mapping model is determined by one of a plurality of mapping model candidates.
These elements or contents are not performed by an intended computer, and the bitstream is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the contents/elements that describe the generation of the bitstream and intended computer system. Therefore, those claim contents/elements are not given patentable weight. Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Kim (US Patent Application Publication no. 2020/0021807), who recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (See Kim [0188] and [0219]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-3, 7-11, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2020/0021807).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an image decoding method (See Kim’s Abstract), the method comprising: obtaining, based on a mapping model, a prediction block of a target block by performing a prediction of the target block (See Kim [0041], [0063] and [0206]; and reconstructing, based on the prediction block, the target block, wherein the mapping model is determined by one of a plurality of mapping model candidates (See Kim Fig. 15, step 1530, [0008]-[0009] and [0155]).
As per claim 9, Kim discloses image encoding method (See Kim [0010]), the method comprising: obtaining, based on a mapping model, a prediction block of a target block by performing a prediction of the target block (See Kim [0010]; and reconstructing, based on the prediction block (See Kim [0055]), the target block, wherein the mapping model is determined by one of a plurality of mapping model candidates (See Kim [0124] and [0127]).
As per claims 2-3 and 10-11, Kim discloses wherein the plurality of mapping model candidates are determined based on at least one of a spatial adjacent block, a spatial non-adjacent block or a temporal adjacent block of the target block (See Kim [0076]-[0077]).
As per claims 7 and 15, Kim further discloses wherein the spatial adjacent block includes at least one of blocks adjacent to a top, top- left, a top-right, left or bottom-left of the target block (See Kim [0096]).
As per claims 8 and 16, Kim further discloses wherein one the of plurality of mapping model candidates are determined by an index signaled from a bitstream (See Kim [0124]).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang discloses a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method, the method comprising: obtaining, based on a mapping model, a prediction block of a target block by performing a prediction of the target block; and reconstructing, based on the prediction block, the target block, wherein the mapping model is determined by one of a plurality of mapping model candidates (See Kim [0188] and [0219]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 4-6, 12-13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2020/0021807) in view of Zhang et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 20240155149).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, it is noted that Kim is silent about wherein the block adjacent to the collocated block is a block at a right, bottom or bottom-right position of the collocated block.
However, Zhang teaches wherein the block adjacent to the collocated block is a block at a right, bottom or bottom-right position of the collocated block (See Zhang [0218]0.
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Kim to incorporate Zhang’s teachings wherein the block adjacent to the collocated block is a block at a right, bottom or bottom-right position of the collocated block. The motivation for performing such a modification in Kim is to obtained a motion shift from the motion vector from one of the spatial neighboring blocks of the current coding unit.
As per claims 5 and 13, the combination of Kim and Zhang further teaches wherein the block adjacent to the collocated block is a block positioned at a position spaced by a motion vector from a position of the collocated block, and wherein the spacing is determined based on a neighbor motion vector of the target block (See Zhang [0111]).
As per claims 6 and 14, the combination of Kim and Zhang further teaches wherein, when the target block is a chroma component block, the spatial adjacent block is a block indicated by one of a block vector of a luma component block or a motion vector of the luma component block corresponding to the target block (See Zhang [0923], [1076]).
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIMS S PHILIPPE whose telephone number is (571)272-7336. The examiner can normally be reached Maxi Flex.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/GIMS S PHILIPPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights