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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/20/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 recites: 14. The method of claim 1, wherein if the indication of the CIBCIP mode is not signalled, it is inferred to be a default value, or
wherein if the indication of the CIBCIP mode is not signalled, it is inferred to be false, or
wherein if the indication of the CIBCIP mode is not signalled, it is inferred to be true.
Both the second and the third limitation have the same condition, but different outcome (false or true). It is not clear how “wherein if the indication of the CIBCIP mode is not signalled”, can inferred to be false and true.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
Claims 1-7 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by XU et al. (US2022086447A1, hereinafter “Xu”).
Regarding claim 1. Xu disclose 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 a combination of intra block copy (IBC) and intra prediction (CIBCIP) to the video unit based on at least one of: coding information, whether an indication of CIBCIP mode is indicated, or one or more syntax elements (0006, 0483 and 0534; claim 1; Figure 36; “[0534] FIG. 36 is a flowchart for an example method 3600 of video processing. The method 3600 includes, at 3602, generating, for a conversion between a block of a video and a bitstream representation of the block, prediction for the block with a combined method which uses intra block copy (IBC) prediction and intra prediction in combination; and at 3604, performing the conversion based on the prediction.”);
deriving a prediction of the video unit by combining an IBC predicted signal and an intra predicted signal (0340-0430; Figure 29); and
performing the conversion based on the prediction of the video unit (0468, 0472-0474 and 0483-0485).
Regarding claim 2. Xu disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the coding information comprises at least one of:
whether IBC or intra prediction approach is allowed (0361),
whether coding unit (CU) skip mode is used (0129),
a block dimensions and/or block size (0356, 0551),
a block depth,
a slice type,
a picture type,
a partition tree type,
a temporal layer identification,
a block location, or
a colour component.
Regarding claim 3. Xu disclose the method of claim 2, wherein the video unit is allowed to be coded with the CIBCIP if a width of the video unit is larger than or equal to a first threshold and/or a height of the video unit is larger than or equal to a second threshold (0066, 0300 and 0314-0317; Figures 4 and 32).
Regarding claims 4-6. claims 4-6 recite similar features as the limitation of claim 3. Therefore, claims 4-6 are rejected for the same reasoning of anticipation as used to reject claim 3.
Regarding claim 7. Xu disclose the method of claim 1, wherein an intra prediction mode (IPM) candidate list is constructed and one or more IPMs of the IPM candidate list are used in intra prediction of the CIBCIP (0068; Figure 5).
Regarding claim 10. claim 10 recites similar features as the limitation of claim 2. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasoning of anticipation as used to reject claim 2.
Regarding claims 11-13. claims 11-13 recites similar features as the limitation of claims 3-6. Therefore, claims 11-13 are rejected for the same reasoning of anticipation as used to reject claims 3-6.
Regarding claim 14. Xu disclose the method of claim 1, wherein if the indication of the CIBCIP mode is not signalled, it is inferred to be a default value, or
wherein if the indication of the CIBCIP mode is not signalled, it is inferred to be false (0314), or
wherein if the indication of the CIBCIP mode is not signalled, it is inferred to be true (0314).
Regarding claim 15. Xu disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the indication of CIBCIP mode is not signalled if CU skip is used (0226).
Regarding claim 16. Xu disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the indication of CIBCIP mode is signalled if CU skip is used (0201).
Regarding claim 17. Xu disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the video unit into the bitstream (claim 18), and/or
wherein the conversion includes decoding the video unit from the bitstream (claim 17).
Regarding claim 18. Apparatus claim 18 is drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, apparatus claim 18 corresponds to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Regarding claim 19. The Non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 19 is drawn to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of using the corresponding to the method of using the same as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim19 corresponds to the method claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Regarding claim 20. Claim 20 directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (CRM) storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for video processing.
The claim does not recite that the CRM contains executable instruction, that when executed, implement the encoding method. The bitstream is a product produced by the encoding method. Therefore, the claims are not limited to the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. (See MPEP §2113 - Product-by-Process claims.) Hence, the encoding method steps recited are given patentable weight only to structures in the bitstream that are implied by the steps.
To be given patentable weight, the CRM and the bitstream (i.e. descriptive material) must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the descriptive material performs some function with respect to the CRM to which it is associated. See 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 CRM storing the claimed bitstream in claim 20 merely services as a support for the CRM of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and the CRM. Therefore, the structure 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 XU which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (0671).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 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 ASMAMAW G TARKO whose telephone number is (571)272-7493. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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.
/ASMAMAW G TARKO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights