DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application filed June 25, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,882 (the ‘882 patent) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0288120 (“Xu”). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that claims 1-20 of the ‘882 patent in view of Xu and claims 1, 4-8, 11-16, and 18-20 of the instant invention cover substantially the same subject matter.
The table below shows claim 1, a sample of how each of these claims is rendered unpatentable by claims such as claim 1 of the ‘882 patent in view of Xu:
Instant Application
‘882 Patent
1. (Original) A method comprising:
1. A method comprising:
1. Limitation 1: determining that a value of a coordinate for a sample is outside a range of values of the coordinate for samples in a reference region, wherein the sample is displaced relative to a current block by an amount indicated by a block vector predictor (BVP) candidate;
1. Limitation 1: determining a value of a coordinate for a sample is outside a range of values of the coordinate for samples in a reference region, wherein the sample is displaced relative to a current block by an amount indicated by a block vector predictor (BVP)…;
1. Limitation 2: adjusting, based on the determining, a component of the BVP to have an adjusted value within the range of values of the coordinate for the samples in the reference region, wherein the component corresponds to a direction of the coordinate;
1. Limitation 2: adjusting, based on the determining, a component of the BVP to have an adjusted value closer to the range of values of the coordinate for the samples in the reference region, wherein the component corresponds to a direction of the coordinate…
1. Limitation 3: generating a list of BVP candidates comprising the BVP candidate with the component adjusted to have the adjusted value;
1. Limitation 4: determining a block vector difference (BVD) for the current block;
1. Limitation 3: … using … a block vector difference (BVD)… for the current block
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have understood that in order to use a BVD, it must be determined
1. Limitation 5: determining a block vector (BV) for the current block by combining the BVD and a BVP selected from the list of BVP candidates; and
1. Limitation 3: using the BVP, with the component adjusted to have the adjusted value, and a block vector difference (BVD) to determine the BV…
1. Limitation 6: generating, based on the BV, a reference block for the current block.
1. Limitation 3: … determine the BV used for generating a reference block for the current block.
With respect to claim 1, the ‘882 patent claims do not disclose generating a list of BVP candidates comprising the BVP candidate with the component adjusted to have the adjusted value.
However, Xu discloses generating a list of BVP candidates comprising the BVP candidate with the component adjusted to have the adjusted value (see ¶¶33, 137, 139, 161, 168, describing generating a list of BVP candidates and that the BVP candidate list is subject to a clipping process, i.e., comprising BVP candidates adjusted to have an adjusted value).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood the ways in which a BVP for forming the BV may be determined, including, as evidenced by Xu, via a BVP candidate list including adjusted BVP candidates. Accordingly, using such a list to determine the BVP of with claim 1 of the ‘882 patent would have been nothing more than the simple substitution for one element for another to obtain predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the ‘882 patent to use Xu’s method of determining the selected adjusted BVP for combination.
Thereby, claim 1 is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of the ‘882 patent.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 10, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,382,089 (the ‘089 patent) in view of Xu. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that claims 3, 10, and 17 of the ‘089 patent in view of Xu and claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-20 of the instant invention cover substantially the same subject matter.
The table below shows claim 1, a sample of how each of these claims is rendered unpatentable by claims such as claim 3 of the ‘089 patent in view of Xu:
Instant Application
‘089 Patent
1. (Original) A method comprising:
1. A method comprising:
1. Limitation 1: determining that a value of a coordinate for a sample is outside a range of values of the coordinate for samples in a reference region, wherein the sample is displaced relative to a current block by an amount indicated by a block vector predictor (BVP) candidate;
1. Limitation 1: determining a value of a coordinate for a sample is outside a range of values of the coordinate for samples in a[]… reference region, wherein the sample is displaced relative to a current block by an amount indicated by a candidate block vector predictor (BVP)…;
1. Limitation 2: adjusting, based on the determining, a component of the BVP to have an adjusted value within the range of values of the coordinate for the samples in the reference region, wherein the component corresponds to a direction of the coordinate;
1. Limitation 2: based on the determining, adjusting a component of the candidate BVP to generate an adjusted candidate BVP based on the [] reference region…;
3. … wherein: … the component is a horizontal component; or … the component is a vertical component;
1. Limitation 3: generating a list of BVP candidates comprising the BVP candidate with the component adjusted to have the adjusted value;
1. Limitation 3: constructing a … list of BVP candidates comprising the adjusted candidate BVP;
1. Limitation 4: determining a block vector difference (BVD) for the current block;
1. Limitation 1: … wherein the candidate BVP in combination with a block vector difference (BVD) for the current block determines…
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have understood that in order to use a BVD to determine the BV, the BVD must necessarily have been determined.
1. Limitation 5: determining a block vector (BV) for the current block by combining the BVD and a BVP selected from the list of BVP candidates; and
1. Limitation 1: … wherein the candidate BVP in combination with a block vector difference (BVD) for the current block determines a block vector (BV) for the current block, …
1. Limitation 6: generating, based on the BV, a reference block for the current block.
With respect to claim 1, the ‘089 patent claims do not disclose generating, based on the BV, a reference block for the current block.
However, Xu discloses generating, based on the BV, a reference block for the current block (see Fig. 8, ¶¶113-114, 116, describing determining a block vector for the current block and generating a reference block therefrom).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood the ways in which a reference block for the current block is reconstructed in intra BC mode, including as evidenced by Xu, based on the BV. Accordingly, using the BV of claim 3 of the ‘089 patent to generate a reference block for the current block would have been nothing more than the simple substitution for one element for another to obtain predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the ‘089 patent to use Xu’s method of generating a reference block for the current block from the BV.
Thereby, claim 1 is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of the ‘089 patent.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0227257 (“Kim”).
With respect to claim 8, Xu discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including
An apparatus comprising:
one or more processors (see Fig. 13, ¶¶35, 182-191, describing that the encoder/decoder may be executed by a CPU/processor and memory storing instructions/software for execution by the processor); and
memory storing instructions (see citations with respect to element above) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
determine that a value of a coordinate for a sample is outside a range of values of the coordinate for samples in a reference region, wherein the sample is displaced relative to a current block by an amount indicated by a block vector predictor (BVP) candidate (see Figs. 8, 10, ¶¶33-34, 139, 161, 164, describing determining that the reference block of the current block will be out of an allowed range if the invalid block vector predictor is used, i.e., determine that a value of a coordinate for a sample is outside a range of values of the coordinate for samples in a reference region, and that the reference block/sample is displaced relative to the current block by a prediction of the block vector, i.e., an amount indicated in a block vector predictor candidate);
adjust, based on the determining, a component of the BVP candidate to have an adjusted value within to the range of values of the coordinate for the samples in the reference region, wherein the component corresponds to a direction of the coordinate (see citations above, including ¶¶33-34, 161, 164 describing clipping, i.e., adjusting, by modifying a horizontal component, vertical component, or both of the BVP to constrain the block vector in a valid region, i.e., adjusting a direction of the coordinate (horizontal, vertical, or both) based on the determining to have an adjusted value within the range of values for the coordinate for the samples in the reference region);
generate a list of BVP candidate comprising the BVP candidate with the component adjusted to have the adjusted value (see citations with respect to elements above, including ¶¶33, 161, describing that the BVP candidate list is subject to a clipping process, i.e., candidates are adjusted to have an adjusted value, and ¶¶137, 139, 168, describing the generation of such a candidate list, i.e., generate a list of BVP candidates);
…
determine a block vector (BV) for the current block…(see Fig. 8, ¶¶113-114, 116, describing determining a block vector for the current block); and
generate, based on the BV, a reference block for the current block (see citations with respect to element above describing that the reference block for the current block is derived, i.e., generated from, the block vector/BV).
Although Xu details the use of Intra BC mode, including the signaling of a BVD and the generation of a BV from the BVP and BVD (see, e.g., ¶114), Xu does not go into detail regarding this process. Thus, Xu does not explicitly describe how the BVP and BVD are combined to derive the BV for the current block in Intra BC, i.e., determine a block vector difference (BVD) for the current block; determine a block vector (BV) for the current block by combining the BVD and BVP selected from the list of BVP candidates.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses that such things were known to be a part of Intra BC, i.e.:
determine a block vector difference (BVD) for the current block (see Figs. 5, 15, items 1510-1530, ¶¶112-115, 145, 175-176, 191, describing that a block vector difference/BVD for the current block is decoded/parsed);
determine a block vector (BV) for the current block by combining the BVD and BVP selected from the list of BVP candidates (see citations with respect to element above, describing that the block vector (BV) for the current block is determined by summing the selected BVP candidate from the candidate list and the parsed/decoded BVD);
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with Intra BC mode and how a BV is derived in such a mode and have understood that, as evidenced by Kim, such derivation includes determining a BVD and combining the BVP selected from the BVP candidates with the BVD to derive the BV. Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, doing so in the Intra BC coding method of Xu would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include determining a BVD and combining the BVP selected from the BVP candidates with the BVD to derive the BV in the Intra BC coding of Xu as taught by Kim.
With respect to claim 9, Xu discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Xu in view of Kim discloses all the elements of independent claim 8. Xu/Kim additionally discloses:
wherein the list of BVP candidates is an advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) list and wherein the AMVP list comprises one or more spatial candidates derived from neighboring blocks of the current block (see Xu Fig. 11, ¶¶114, 137, describing that the list of BVP candidates may be an AMVP list including the 5 spatial neighboring candidate blocks).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 8 also apply to claim 9.
With respect to claim 10, Xu discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Xu in view of Kim discloses all the elements of independent claim 8. Xu/Kim additionally discloses:
wherein the determining the BV comprises adding the BVD and BVP (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 8 above, describing that determining the BV comprises summing, i.e., adding, the BVD and BVP).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 8 also apply to claim 10.
With respect to claim 11, Xu discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Xu in view of Kim discloses all the elements of independent claim 8. Xu/Kim additionally discloses:
wherein an upper bound of the range of values of the coordinate is adjusted based on a width or height of the current block (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 8 above, and Xu, Figs. 9A-9D, ¶¶117-118, 129-131, showing and describing that the valid range may be based on a valid IBC search range, e.g., is constrained to be within a current CTU (which as seen in Figs. 9A-9D is based on current block width/height) where the current block resides and/or to be in an already reconstructed range (which as detailed is dependent upon cbWidth and cbHeight), i.e., the upper bound of the range of values may be adjusted based on the width or height of the current block).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 8 also apply to claim 11.
With respect to claim 12, Xu discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Xu in view of Kim discloses all the elements of independent claim 8. Xu/Kim additionally discloses:
wherein, to adjust the component, the instructions, when executed, further cause the apparatus to adjust the component to have a value equal to a maximum or minimum value of the range of values (see citations with respect to claim 8 above, describing that the vertical or horizontal components may be adjusted by clipping the component to be within the valid region, i.e., to have a value equal to a maximum or minimum value of the range of values).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 8 also apply to claim 12.
With respect to claim 13, Xu discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Xu in view of Kim discloses all the elements of independent claim 8. Xu/Kim additionally discloses:
wherein, to adjust the component, the instructions, when executed, further cause the apparatus to adjust the component to have a value equal to a closer one of a maximum or minimum value of the range of values (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 12 above, describing adjusting the component to have a value such that the CU is within the boundaries of the valid region, i.e., closer to the maximum or minimum of the range of values).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 9 also apply to claim 12.
With respect to claim 14, Xu discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Xu in view of Kim discloses all the elements of independent claim 8. Xu/Kim additionally discloses:
wherein, to adjust the component, the instructions when executed further cause the apparatus to adjust the component to have a value equal to a maximum value of the range of values based on the coordinate of the sample being greater than an upper bound of the range of values (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 12 above, describing that where the reference block location, i.e., sample position, exceeds the valid region, e.g., is greater than an upper bound of the range of values, the component is clipped/adjusted to have a value within the boundaries of the region, i.e., to have a value equal to a maximum value of the range of values – one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood by this description, that clipping adjustments are made to bring the block to within/inside the nearest boundary, i.e., to the maximum or minimum of any of the valid reference area’s horizontal or vertical boundaries depending on the original location).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 8 also apply to claim 14.
With respect to claim 15, Xu discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Xu in view of Kim discloses all the elements of independent claim 8. Xu/Kim additionally discloses:
wherein, to adjust the component, the instructions, when executed, further cause the apparatus to adjust the component to have a value equal to a minimum value of the range of values based on the coordinate of the sample being less than a lower bound of the range of values (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 12 above, describing that where the reference block location, i.e., sample position, exceeds the valid region, e.g., is less than an lower bound of the range of values, the component is clipped/adjusted to have a value within the boundaries of the region, i.e., to have a value equal to a minimum value of the range of values – one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood by this description, that clipping adjustments are made to bring the block to within/inside the nearest boundary, i.e., to the maximum or minimum of any of the valid reference area’s horizontal or vertical boundaries depending on the original location).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 8 also apply to claim 15.
With respect to claim 1, claim 1 recites the elements of claim 8 in method form rather than apparatus form. Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 8 also applies to claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, claim 2 recites the elements of claim 9 in method form rather than apparatus form. Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 9 also applies to claim 2.
With respect to claim 3, claim 3 recites the elements of claim 10 in method form rather than apparatus form. Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 10 also applies to claim 3.
With respect to claim 4, claim 4 recites the elements of claim 12 in method form rather than apparatus form. Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 12 also applies to claim 4.
With respect to claim 5, claim 5 recites the elements of claim 13 in method form rather than apparatus form. Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 13 also applies to claim 5.
With respect to claim 6, claim 6 recites the elements of claims 14 and 15 in method form rather than apparatus form. Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claims 14 and 15 also applies to claim 6.
With respect to claim 7, Xu discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Xu in view of Kim discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Xu/Kim additionally discloses:
wherein the direction of the coordinate is a horizontal direction or a vertical direction (see citations with respect to claim 8 above, describing that the direction of the coordinate may be horizontal, vertical, or both).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 8 also apply to claim 15.
With respect to claim 16, claim 16 recites the elements of claim 8 in computer-readable medium form rather than apparatus form. Xu 2 discloses that its method/apparatus may be embodied by a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that are executed by one or more processors (see citations with respect to claim 1 above). Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 8 also applies to claim 16.
With respect to claim 17, claim 17 recites the elements of claim 9 in computer-readable medium form rather than apparatus form. Xu 2 discloses that its method/apparatus may be embodied by a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that are executed by one or more processors (see citations with respect to claim 1 above). Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 9 also applies to claim 17.
With respect to claim 18, claim 18 recites the elements of claim 11 in computer-readable medium form rather than apparatus form. Xu 2 discloses that its method/apparatus may be embodied by a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that are executed by one or more processors (see citations with respect to claim 1 above). Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 11 also applies to claim 18.
With respect to claim 19, claim 19 recites the elements of claim 12 in computer-readable medium form rather than apparatus form. Xu 2 discloses that its method/apparatus may be embodied by a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that are executed by one or more processors (see citations with respect to claim 1 above). Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 12 also applies to claim 19.
With respect to claim 20, claim 20 recites the elements of claim 13 in computer-readable medium form rather than apparatus form. Xu 2 discloses that its method/apparatus may be embodied by a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that are executed by one or more processors (see citations with respect to claim 1 above). Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 13 also applies to claim 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY JANE KILE UHL whose telephone number is (571)270-0337. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 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, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. 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.
LINDSAY J UHL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481
/LINDSAY J UHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights