DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending 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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim under PCT CN 2022136580 filed on 12/5/2022.
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 –
Claim(s) 1-3, 15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al, US 2021/0235092 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Liu discloses a method of video processing, comprising: determining, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, whether to apply an intra block copy (IBC) and local illumination compensation (LIC) (IBC-LIC) mode to the video unit; in accordance with a determination of applying the IBC-LIC mode to the video unit, deriving, a refined prediction of the video unit by applying the IBC-LIC mode to the video unit, wherein deriving the refined prediction of the video unit comprises: obtaining a prediction of the video unit by applying the IBC to the video unit; and obtaining the refined prediction of the video unit by applying the LIC to the prediction; and performing the conversion based on the refined prediction (Liu [0380]–[0383] – It is proposed that LIC may be used together with intra block copy (IBC, or current picture referencing) mode. For example, if a block is coded with intra block copy mode, indication of LIC usage (e.g., a LIC flag) may be further signaled. In one example, in merge mode, if an IBC coded block inherits motion information from a neighboring block, it may also inherit the LIC flag. Alternatively, it may also inherit the LIC parameters).
Regarding Claim 2, Liu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein whether to apply the IBC-LIC mode for IBC merge mode is derived (Liu [0377]–[0383] – in merge mode, if an IBC coded block inherits motion information from a neighboring block, it may also inherit the LIC flag. Alternatively, it may also inherit the LIC parameters).
Regarding Claim 3, Liu discloses the method of claim 2, wherein a template matching based approach is used to determine whether to apply the IBC-LIC mode for IBC merge mode (Liu [0233] – In the template matching merge mode, the encoder can choose among uni-prediction from list0, uni-prediction from list1 or bi-prediction for a CU).
Regarding Claim 15, Liu discloses the discloses the method of claim 1, wherein an indication of the IBC-LIC mode is indicated based on a condition, or wherein the indication of the IBC-LIC mode is derived (Liu [0386] – if a block is coded with LIC enabled, indication of IBC usage may be further signaled).
Regarding Claim 17, Liu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the video unit into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the video unit from the bitstream (Liu [0060] – The present document provides several techniques that can be embodied into digital video encoders and decoders).
With regard to claim 18, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 1 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 1 is applied to claim 18.
With regard to claim 19, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 1 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 1 is applied to claim 19.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (US 2014/0086333 A1).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 claims a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III).
The memory storing the claimed bitstream in claim 20 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore, the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Wang which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream.
Wang discloses, a bitstream of compressed video data, including a computer readable storage medium storing the compressed non-transitory video data (Wang [0060] and [0044]-[0045] – Video encoder 20” implemented as a variety of suitable circuitry such as one or more microprocessors).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 4, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, in view of Jang et al, US 2022/0124308 A1.
Regarding Claim 4, Liu discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above.
Even though Liu teaches the IBC-LIC mode, Liu does not explicitly disclose a IBC mode is used in a process of reordering a block vector (BV) candidate list.
Jang teaches the IBC mode is used in a process of reordering a block vector (BV) candidate list (Jang [0007] – modifying the block vector candidate list based on an history-based motion vector prediction (HVMP) candidate to which the IBC prediction mode is applied when a number of current candidates of the block vector candidate list is smaller than a maximum candidate number).
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 which the claimed invention pertains to modify Liu to include reordering a block vector (BV) candidate list, as taught by Jang. One would be motivated as the reordering the list may be beneficial when conditions are met.
Regarding Claim 12, Liu, in combination, further discloses the method of claim 4, wherein a set of IBC-LIC parameters is derived (Liu [0384] – LIC parameters being derived).
Regarding Claim 13, Liu, in combination, further discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the derived set of IBC-LIC parameters is used for at least one of: a left template or an above template (Liu [0209] – As shown in FIG. 27, template matching is used to derive motion information of the current CU by finding the closest match between a template (top and/or left neighboring blocks of the current CU) in the current picture and a block (same size to the template) in a reference picture).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Jang, in view of Xu et al, US 2020/0359040 A1.
Regarding Claim 5, Liu and Jang teach the method of claim 4, as outlined above.
However, Liu does not explicitly disclose the BV candidate list is at least one of: an IBC advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) candidate list, or an IBC merge candidate list
Xu teaches the BV candidate list is at least one of: an IBC advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) candidate list, or an IBC merge candidate list (Xu [0112] – The candidate list of IBC BV prediction in AMVP mode may share the one used in IBC merge mode (merge candidate list), with 2 spatial candidates+5 HBVP candidates).
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 which the claimed invention pertains to modify Liu where the BV candidate list an IBC advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) candidate list, as taught by Xu. One would be motivated as the AMVP list improves the efficiency in compression as a means to predict the motion.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Jang, in view of Xu et al, US 2020/0252621 A1 (Xu-2).
Regarding Claim 6, Liu and Jang teach the method of claim 4, as outlined above.
However, Liu does not explicitly disclose the BV candidate list is at least one of: an IBC regular merge list, an IBC template matching (TM) merge list, or an IBC- merge mode with block vector difference (MBVD) merge list.
Xu-2 teaches the BV candidate list is at least one of: an IBC regular merge list, an IBC template matching (TM) merge list, or an IBC-merge mode with block vector difference (MBVD) merge list (Xu-2 [0123] – When a block vector predictor list (either in a merge list or with block vector difference coding) in the IBC prediction mode is constructed separately from a motion vector predictor list (either in a merge list or with motion vector difference coding)).
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 which the claimed invention pertains to modify Liu where the BV candidate list has a merge list, as taught by Xu-2. One would be motivated as the merge list improves the efficiency in compression preventing unnecessary retransmission of data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11, 14, 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR SHAHNAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-0707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 571-272-7383. 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.
/AMIR SHAHNAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights