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 .
Acknowledgement of Amendment
Applicants’ amendment filed 07/13/2026 overcomes the following objection(s)/rejection(s):
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for claims 4, 5-7 and 15-16 has been withdrawn in view of Applicants amendment.
The rejection of claims 5, 8 and 9 for having insufficient antecedent basis has been withdrawn in view of Applicants amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As per Applicants argument Chen does not disclose IBC merge predictions for two partitions are determined from at least one of regular merge candidates, TM refined merge candidates, or MBVD candidates. Therefore, Chen fails to anticipate, teach, or suggest “obtaining, by the decoder and from at least one of regular merge candidates, Template Matching (TM ) refined merge candidates or merge candidates with block vector differences (MBVD) candidates, a first IBC merge prediction and a second IBC merge prediction” as recited in claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and directs the Applicant to at least paragraphs [0183-0184], where Chen discloses three different bidirectional motion types can exist if IBC is available for GPM. For example, a first type can include normal bidirectional motion information (e., MV) that is combined (or generated) from two inter merge prediction blocks. A second type can be associated with a combination of IBC and inter merge prediction. Further disclosed is that the motion information of GPM with IBC can be coded by a merge mode. The motion vector for each partition can be either from a merge motion mode or from a merged BV of IBC. In addition, the Examiner directs the applicant to at least paragraphs [0150], [0158], [0161-0163] and fig. 16, where Chen discloses The GPM can be applied to support inter and intra prediction to enhance the coding performance beyond VVC. For example, pre-defined intra prediction modes against (or regarding) a geometric partition line can be selected in addition to motion vectors from a merge candidate list for each geometric partition in a GPM-applied CU. Thus, disclosing obtaining from regular merge candidates a first and second IBC merge prediction. Further still, Chen discloses in [0030] [0145], [0193] and fig. 16, where Chen discloses if GPM is used for the current CU, a signal indicating the geometric partition index, and two merge indices (one for each partition) can further be signalled. Further in para [0145]-Chen discloses After each of the two geometric partitions is predicted, sample values along a geometric partition edge can be adjusted using a blending process with adaptive weights. A prediction signal for the whole CU can accordingly be generated after the blending process. Thus, the Examiner maintains that Chen discloses to obtain a prediction for the current CU based on the first and second IBC merge prediction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-3, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Chen et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0034458 A1).
As per claim 1, Chen teaches a method for video decoding ([0022], “ Aspects of the disclosure provides methods and apparatuses for video encoding/decoding”), comprising: obtaining, by a decoder (fig. 5 and [0063]), a current coding unit (CU) that is coded based on Intra Block Copy (IBC) mode combined with Geometric Partitioning mode (GPM) (fig. 16 e. 1630, and [0117], [0153-0154] [0158-0163] and [0184], [0190], “in this disclosure, GPM can be combined with different prediction blocks. For example, GPM can be combined with three different prediction blocks. The different prediction blocks can be generated by using (IBC, an inter prediction mode, and an intra prediction mode, respectively), obtaining, by the decoder and from at least one of regular merge candidates, Template Matching (TM ) refined merge candidates, or merge candidates with block vector difference (MBVD candidates),a first IBC merge prediction and a second IBC merge prediction (fig. 16 el. S1630-S1650 and [0158] “The GPM mode can be embedded with IBC merge (or a merge mode of the IBC), which can be similar to an embodiment in which the VVC GPM mode is embedded with a merge mode of the inter prediction”); and obtaining, by the decoder, a prediction for the current CU based on the first IBC merge prediction and the second IBC merge prediction ([0030], [0145], [0193]).
As per claim 2, Chen teaches wherein obtaining, by the decoder, the first IBC merge prediction and the second IBC merge prediction comprises one of the following acts: obtaining, the decoder, both the first IBC merge prediction and the second merge prediction from the regular merge candidates ([0032], [0184], [0202] and fig. 16); obtaining, by the decoder, both the first IBC merge prediction and the second IBC merge prediction from the TM refined merge candidates; or obtaining, by the decoder, both the first IBC merge prediction and the second IBC merge prediction from the MBVD candidates.
As per claim 3, Chen teaches wherein obtaining, by the decoder, the first IBC merge prediction and the second IBC merge prediction ([0029], [0032]); comprises: obtaining, by the decoder, the first IBC merge prediction from one of the regular merge candidates, the TM refined merge candidates or the MBVD candidates ([0032], [0143], [0202]); and obtaining, by the decoder, the second IBC merge prediction from one of the other two of the regular merge candidates, the TM refined merge candidates, or the MBVD candidates ([0032], [0202]; “in response to the second prediction type being IBC, a second block vector associated with the second partition can determined as the second merge candidate in the IBC list”); or obtaining, by the decoder, the first IBC merge prediction from the regular merge candidates, and the second IBC merge prediction from the TM refined merge candidates; or obtaining, by the decoder, the first IBC merge prediction from the TM refined merge candidates, and the second IBC merge prediction from the regular merge candidate; reusing a TM refined merge candidate from the TM merge candidates as the first IBC merge prediction or the second IBC merge prediction; or in response to determining that a predefined GPM split mode is used, utilizing a first template for a first GPM split partition of the current CU and a second template for a second GPM split partition of the current CU, and obtaining a first TM refined IBC merge prediction or a second TM refined IBC merge prediction based on the first template, the first GPM split partition, the second template, the second GPM split partition, wherein the first template differs from the second template.
As per claim 17, which is the corresponding method for encoding with the limitations of the method for video decoding, as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection analysis made for claim 1 also applies here.
As pe claim 18, which is the corresponding apparatus with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here. In addition, Chen teaches one or more processors ([0116]); and a memory coupled to the one more processors and configured to store instructions executable by the one or more processors ([0116]).
As per claim 19, which is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here.
As per claim 20, which is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., (U.S. Pub. 2023/0034458 A1) and further in view of Wang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0372984 A1).
As per claim 4, Chen does not explicitly disclose decoding, by the decoder, all allowed GPM split modes for the current CU with a same probability.
However, Wang teaches decoding, by the decoder, all allowed GPM split modes for the current CU with a same probability ([0147])).
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 Wang with Chen for the benefit of providing increase coding efficiency.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0034458 A1) in view of Lo et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0220155 A1).
As per claim 5, Chen does not explicitly disclose receiving by the decoder, a first index indicating that a selected group of the plurality of groups obtained from dividing all allowed GPM split modes; and receiving, by the decoder, a second index indicating the GPM split mode in the selected group of the plurality of group.
However, Lo teaches receiving, by the decoder, a first index indicating that a selected group of the plurality of groups obtained from dividing all allowed GPM split modes ([0067-0068]); and receiving by the decoder, a second index indicating the GPM split mode in the selected group of the plurality of group ([0068], “..a group index with reduced bit length is signaled for decoder to indicate which GPM partition mode is selected”).
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 Lo with Chen for the benefit of providing increased coding efficiency.
As per claim 6, Chen (modified by Lo) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 5. Chen does not explicitly wherein the first group comprises GPM split mode along a horizontal direction or a vertical direction of the current CU; wherein the second group comprises GPM split modes along a direction other than the horizontal direction or the vertical direction of the current CU.
However, Lo teaches wherein the first group comprises GPM split modes along a horizontal direction or a vertical direction of the current CU (fig. 7); wherein the second group comprises GPM split along a direction other than the horizontal direction or the vertical direction of the current CU (fig. 7).
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 Lo with Chen for the benefit of providing increased coding efficiency.
Claim(s) 10-11, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0034458 A1) and further in view of Chen et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0345023 A1; herein referenced as “Chen’23”).
As per claim 10, Although Chen discloses blending a first GPM split partition and a second GPM split partition for the GPM of the current CU ([0145], [0150]). Chen does not explicitly disclose obtaining a blending width; and blending a first GPM split partition and a second GPM split partition for the GPM of the current CU using the blending width; and wherein obtaining, by the decoder the prediction for the current CU comprises: obtaining, by the decoder, the prediction for the current CU based on the first IBC merge prediction, the second IBC merge prediction, and a result of blending.
However, Chen’23 teaches obtaining a blending width (abstract, [0005], [0075] and at least fig. 4C); and blending a first GPM split partition and a second GPM split partition of the GPM of the current CU using the blending width (fig. 4C, [0077]); and wherein obtaining, by the decoder, the prediction for the current CU comprises: obtaining, by the decoder, the prediction for the current CU based on the first IBC merge prediction, the second IBC merge prediction, and a result of blending (fig. 4C, [0077], [0088]).
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 Chen’23 with Chen for the benefit of providing improved image quality and coding efficiency.
As per claim 11, Chen (modified by Chen’23) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 10. Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the obtaining the blending width comprises: receiving an index indicating the blending width.
However, Chen’23 teaches receiving an index indicating a blending width ([0108], [0110-0113], [0115], [0132], “An index can be signaled, for example, at a CU level to indicate which blend function or which blending area θ (e.g., which predefined width candidate) is selected”).
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 Chen’23 with Chen for the benefit of providing improved image quality and coding efficiency.
As per claim 14,Chen does not explicitly disclose determining, based on a kind of content for the current CU, a blending method; wherein, in response to determining that the kind of content is a screen content, determining the blending method comprises: setting a blending width to be 0; and wherein in response to determining that the kind of content is a natural content, determining the blending method comprises: blending the first GPM split partition and the second GPM split partition adaptively.
However, Chen’23 teaches determining, based on a kind of content for the current CU, a blending method ([0076], “the blending area width θ is fixed for CUs having different contents, such as natural contents, screen contents, a mixture of natural content(s) and screen content(s), and the like. In an embodiment, the blending area width θ is adaptive, for example, is selected from a predefined width candidate list, such as shown in FIG. 6”), wherein, in response to determining that the kind of content is a screen content, determining the blending method comprises: setting a blending width to be 0 ([0075], [0137], “The screen content coding tool(s) can include tool(s) for coding screen content, such as an IBC mode, palette coding, and/or the like. In an example, when a screen content coding tool is applied to the current block, N2 is 1 and the width of the blending area is the smallest width candidate in the predefined width candidate list, such as 0 or ½”); and wherein in response to determining that the kind of content is a natural content, determining the blending method comprises: blending the first GPM split partitions and the GPM split partition adaptively ([0076]; “the blending area width θ is adaptive, for example, is selected from a predefined width 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 Chen’23 with Chen for the benefit of providing improved image quality and coding efficiency.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0034458 A1), in view of Chen’23 et al., (U.S. Pub. No.2023/0345023 A1), and further in view of Yang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0412801 A1).
As per claim 13, Chen (modified by Chen’23) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 10. Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein obtaining the blending width comprises: determining, based on a predefined criterion, the blending width; wherein the predefined criterion comprises one of following: a width and a height of the current CU; or a same blending width for all CU sizes.
However, Yang teaches wherein obtaining the blending width comprises: determining, based on a predefined criterion, the blending width; wherein the predefined criterion comprises one of following: a width and a height of the current CU; or a same blending width for all CU sizes (abstract, [0008-0010], [0078-0079]; “.. With reference to figs. 1 and 2, the decoder module 124 may determine the blending width from the candidate width based on the block size of the block unit”).
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 Yang with Chen (modified by Chen’23) for the benefit of providing increased efficiency, [0085].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9, 12, 15-16 are 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.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights