DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
2. Claims 8 and 20 are 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.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “wherein the set of blending area sizes is {τ/4, τ/2, T, 2τ, 4t}), it is noted that the body of the claim fails to define the character, as specifies in the claim, and therefore it is unclear, and consider as vague and indefinite.
Regarding claim 20, It is noted that, the claim is directed to; " A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for video processing, wherein the method comprises".
The limitation as recited in the preamble does not make it clear whether the computer readable
medium contains instructions to perform the video processing or not. Additionally, it is not clear if the
computer performing process of dividing a video unit … operating on the bitstream stored on the medium or not since the claim appears to recite two separate functions.
In accordance with compact prosecution as prescribed in MPEP 2173.06, claim language is
interpreted as follows: 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.
However, claim 20 is directed to A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed …
The body of the claim appears to indicate how the bitstream is being generated or
coded. These elements or steps 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 steps/elements that describe the generation or processing of
the bitstream and intended computer system. Therefore, those claim elements are not given patentable
weight. Therefore, claim 20 considered as vague and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
5. Claims 1-7,9-10 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2023/0073917) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 119586139).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a method of video processing (e.g., fig. 6), comprising; dividing, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, the video unit into a plurality of sub-partitions using a predefined approach (e.g., indication of video may be divided into group of pictures, tiles, slices, macroblocks, coding units, blocks, etc. in paragraphs 0062,0091,0140-0142, wherein the CU can be split in accordance to GPM), wherein the video unit is coded with an intra block copy (IBC)-geometric partition mode (GPM) (e.g., paragraphs 0023,0114,0140-0142), obtaining a prediction of at least one sub-partition of the video unit using intra block copy (e.g., paragraphs 0140-0142), and performing the conversion based on the prediction of the at least one sub-partition of the video unit (e.g., paragraphs 0151-0160).
Chen is silent to explicitly teach, set of geometry partitioning modes used in IBC- GPM is reordered.
Zhang, in the same field of endeavor and throughout the disclosure teaches reordering method of the GPM, and further indicates the IBC candidate list may be an IBC-GPM candidate list.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Zhang, into the video coding of Chen, in order to advantageously improve the coding and decoding validity and coding and decoding efficiency, as suggested by the reference.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Chen and Zhang teach the method of claim 1, wherein a prediction of the at least one sub-partition of the video unit is obtained using one of: intra block copy (IBC) or intra prediction mode, wherein the video unit is coded with an intra block copy (IBC)-geometric partition mode (GPM), and wherein the IBC comprises at least one of: an IBC merge mode, or an IBC advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) mode, and the conversion is performed based on the prediction of the at least one sub-partition of the video unit (e.g., figs. 1a,15-16, abstract, paragraphs 0001,0023, 0114,0140-0142, etc. of Chen; also disclosure of Zhang, it is noted that the claim merely requires only one of these limitations to be fulfilled).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Chen and Zhang teach the method of claim 2, wherein one or more modes are used to obtain the prediction which is an IBC predicted signal (Chen, paragraphs 0023,0114, etc.).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Chen and Zhang teach the method of claim 3, wherein an IBC template matching (TM) merge mode is used to obtain the IBC predicted signal, or wherein the AMVP mode is used to obtain the IBC predicted signal (Zhang, throughout the disclosure indicates,
the IBC AMVP mode, and/or IBC mode is signaled using a flag, which may be signaled as an IBC
AMVP mode, for prediction. it is noted that the claim merely requires only one of these limitations to be fulfilled).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Chen and Zhang teach the method of claim 3, including sub-partition which uses the IBC to obtain the prediction, as discussed in claim 1 above.
Chen, fails to explicitly teach, using an IBC-LIC.
However, examiner takes official notice to indicate that using an IBC-LIC to obtain the prediction, is well known in the conventional prior art of the record, such as, Filippov et al. (US 2024/0179301, paragraphs 0004,0139,0147-0155, etc.). therefore, it would have been obvious before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to implement
such known teaching.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Chen and Zhang teach the method of claim 1, wherein the video unit is divided into a plurality of sub-partitions using a predefined approach, wherein the video unit is coded with an intra block copy (IBC)-geometric partition mode (GPM), a prediction of an area along a geometric partitioning edge of the video unit is obtained by blending predictions of two sub-partitions of the video unit (chen, paragraphs 0141-0142), and the conversion is performed based on the prediction (e.g., paragraphs 0151-0160).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Chen and Zhang teach the method of claim 6, wherein a set of blending area sizes is used, and an index indicating a blending area size is indicated (Chen, paragraph 0142, consider equivalent to the claimed limitation).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Chen and Zhang teach the method of claim 1, wherein an approach to blend the prediction using a plurality of sub-partitions is signaled in the bitstream (Chen, paragraphs 0140,0142).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Chen and Zhang teach the method of claim 9, wherein a
syntax element indicating a blending width is signaled (e.g., it is noted that size would encompass the width, paragraph 0142 of Chen).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Chen and Zhang teach the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the video unit into the bitstream (e.g., figs. 4-8, abstract, etc. of Chen).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Chen and Zhang teach the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the video unit from the bitstream (Chen; figs. 4-8, decoding process as disclosed by Chen).
Regarding claim 18-20, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 1 above, therefore the ground for rejecting claim 1 also applies here.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Chen and Zhang teach storing and/or support for bitstream (e.g., figs. 3-6 of Chen).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 11-15 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.
Contact Information
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Behrooz Senfi, whose telephone number is (571)272-7339. The examiner can
normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
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,
Christopher Kelley can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application
Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained
from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available
through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see
http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact
the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-
9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571 -272-1000.
/BEHROOZ M SENFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights