DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a first office action in response to application no. 19/246,523 filed on June 23, 2025 in which claims 1-20 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-3, 7-8 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rufitskiy et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2024/0179302).
Regarding claim 1, Rufitskiy discloses a method for video processing (See Rufitskiy’s Absrtract), comprising: determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, a base candidate of the current video block (See Rufitskiy [0004] and [0136] where the history-based motion vector will require the base candidate), wherein whether to inherit a flip type for the base candidate is based on a candidate type of the base candidate (See Rufitskiy [0149], [0154]); determining a target candidate of the current video block based on the base candidate (See Rufitskiy [0149]), the target candidate comprising at least one of: an intra block copy (IBC) merge mode with block vector differences (IBC- MBVD) candidate (See Rufitskiy [0138]), an IBC template matching (IBC-TM) merge candidate, or an IBC-TM advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) candidate; and performing the conversion based on the target candidate (See Rufitskiy [0135], [0141]).
As per claim 2, Rufitskiy further discloses wherein the candidate type of the base candidate comprises a history-based motion vector prediction (HMVP) candidate, and the HMVP candidate inherits the flip type (See Rufitskiy [0136]).
As per claim 3, Rufitskiy further discloses wherein the base candidate comprises a block vector (BV) candidate, and the target candidate is determined by applying a BV adjustment to the base candidate (See Rufitskiy [0004], and [0240]).
As per claim 7, Rufitskiy further discloses wherein the candidate type of the base candidate comprises at least one of: a spatial candidate, a temporal candidate, or a pairwise candidate, and the base candidate does not inherit the flip type (See Rufitskiy [0132]).
As per claim 8, Rufitskiy further discloses wherein the flip type for a reconstruction-reordered IBC (RR-IBC) mode is a predefined flip type, wherein the predefined flip type comprises a no flip type (See Rufitskiy [0149]).
As per claim 16, Rufitskiy further discloses wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream (See Rufitskiy [0040], [0041]).
As per claim 17, Rufitskiy further discloses wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream (See Rufitskiy [0065], [0067])
As per claims 18-19, Rufitskiy discloses a video processor comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor (See Rufitskiy’s Abstract, [0047], [0290]) to perform a method comprising: determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video(See Rufitskiy [0004]), a base candidate of the current video block, wherein whether to inherit a flip type for the base candidate is based on a candidate type of the base candidate(See Rufitskiy [0149], [0154] and [0136] where the history-based motion vector will require the base candidate); determining a target candidate of the current video block based on the base candidate (See Rufitskiy [0149]), the target candidate comprising at least one of: an intra block copy (TBC) merge mode with block vector differences (IBC- MBVD) candidate (See Rufitskiy [0138]), an IBC template matching (IBC-TM) merge candidate, or an IBC-TM advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) candidate; and performing the conversion based on the target candidate (See Rufitskiy [0135], [0141]).
As per claim 20, Rufitskiy discloses 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 (See Rufitskiy’s Abstract, [0041], [0290]), wherein the method comprises: determining a base candidate of a current video block of the video (See Rufitskiy [0004], [0149], [0154]), wherein whether to inherit a flip type for the base candidate is based on a candidate type of the base candidate (See Rufitskiy [0149]’ [0152], [0204], and [0136] where the history-based motion vector will require the base candidate), determining a target candidate of the current video block based on the base candidate, the target candidate (See Rufitskiy [0149], [0205]) comprising at least one of: an intra block copy (IBC) merge mode with block vector differences (IBC- MBVD) candidate, an IBC template matching (TBC-TM) merge candidate, or an TBC-TM advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) candidate; and generating the bitstream based on the target candidate(See Rufitskiy [0253], [0135], [0141]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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, and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rufitskiy et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2024/0179302) in view of Zhao rt asl. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2024/0022710).
Regarding claim 4, it is noted that Rufitskiy is silent about wherein the base candidate comprises a block vector (BV) candidate, and the target candidate is determined by applying a BV adjustment to the base candidate.
However, Zhao teaches wherein the base candidate comprises a block vector (BV) candidate, and the target candidate is determined by applying a BV adjustment to the base candidate (See Zhao [0090]).
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 Rufitskiy to incorporate Zhao’s teachings wherein the base candidate comprises a block vector (BV) candidate, and the target candidate is determined by applying a BV adjustment to the base candidate. The motivation for performing such a modification in Rufitskiy is to better utilize the symmetry property as taught by Zhao.
Regarding claim 5, it is noted that Rufitskiy is silent about wherein whether to apply a flip-aware BV adjustment for determining the target candidate is based on a coding mode of the current video block.
However, Zhao teaches wherein whether to apply a flip-aware BV adjustment for determining the target candidate is based on a coding mode of the current video block (See Zhao [0090]).
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 Rufitskiy to incorporate Zhao’s teachings wherein whether to apply a flip-aware BV adjustment for determining the target candidate is based on a coding mode of the current video block. The motivation for performing such a modification in Rufitskiy is to refine the block vector candidate as taught by Zhao.
As per claim 6, the combination of Rufitskiy and Zhao further teaches wherein the target candidate comprises a regular IBC merge candidate, and the flip-aware BV adjustment is applied based on the flip type, or wherein the target candidate comprises a regular IBC AMVP candidate (See Zhao [0089], [0090]-[0091]).
NOTE: The Applicant should note that the claim is written in the alternative, therefore, only one of the listed limitations is required to be met.
As per claims 9-10, it is noted that Rufitskiy is silent about wherein the candidate type comprises a pairwise average candidate, and wherein the flip type of the pairwise average candidate is a predefined flip type, wherein the predefined type comprises a no flip type.
However, Zhao teaches wherein the candidate type comprises a pairwise average candidate, and wherein the flip type of the pairwise average candidate is a predefined flip type, wherein the predefined type comprises a no flip type (See Zhao [0081]).
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 Rufitskiy to incorporate Zhao’s teachings wherein the candidate type comprises a pairwise average candidate, and wherein the flip type of the pairwise average candidate is a predefined flip type, wherein the predefined type comprises a no flip type. The motivation for performing such a modification in Rufitskiy is to refine the block vector candidate as taught by Zhao.
As per claim 11, it is noted that Rufitskiy is silent about wherein the pairwise average candidate is determined based on a first candidate and a second candidate, the first and second candidates sharing a first flip type, and the flip type of the pairwise average candidate is the first flip type.
However, Zhao teaches the pairwise average candidate is determined based on a first candidate and a second candidate, the first and second candidates sharing a first flip type, and the flip type of the pairwise average candidate is the first flip type (See Zhao [0080], [0089]).
Therefore, it considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Rufitskiy to incorporate Zhao’s teachings wherein a pairwise average candidate is determined based on a first candidate and a second candidate, the first and second candidates sharing a first flip type, and the flip type of the pairwise average candidate is the first flip type. The motivation for performing such a modification in Rufitskiy is to refine the block vector candidate as taught by Zhao.
As per claims 12-13, it is noted that Rufitskiy is silent about wherein the pairwise average candidate is determined based on a first candidate and a second candidate, a first flip type of the first candidate being different from a second flip type of the second candidate, and the flip type of the pairwise average candidate is a predefined flip type, wherein the predefined type comprises a no flip type.
However, Zhao teaches wherein the pairwise average candidate is determined based on a first candidate and a second candidate, a first flip type of the first candidate being different from a second flip type of the second candidate, and the flip type of the pairwise average candidate is a predefined flip type, wherein the predefined type comprises a no flip type (See Zhao [0081], [0089], and [0090] Note that the two flips are the horizontal and vertical flips).
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 Rufitskiy to incorporate Zhao’s teachings wherein the pairwise average candidate is determined based on a first candidate and a second candidate, a first flip type of the first candidate being different from a second flip type of the second candidate, and the flip type of the pairwise average candidate is a predefined flip type, wherein the predefined type comprises a no flip type. The motivation for performing such a modification in Rufitskiy is to indicate whether a flip method is applied, since when the flip method is applied, another flag indicating whether it is horizontal or vertical flip is further signaled.
As per claim 14, the combination of Rufitskiy and Zhao further teaches wherein the first and second candidates are in a block vector (BV) candidate list, a first position of the first candidate in the BV candidate list is ahead of a second position of the second candidate in the BV candidate list (See Zhao [0081]).
As per claim 15, the combination of Rufitskiy and Zhao further teaches wherein the BV candidate list comprises at least one of: a regular TBC merge candidate list, a regular IBC AMVP candidate list, an IBC-TM merge candidate list, an IBC-TM AMVP candidate list, or an IBC-MBVD base merge candidate list (See Rufitskiy [0141], [0152]).
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).
9. 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