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 07/03/2026 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figure 4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5, 13, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim includes the typo “OffestR1”. 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Naser et al. US 2025/0254341 A1, hereafter Naser.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a bitstream generated by acts. Significantly, the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium is NOT implementing any actual method; no instructions/steps are being executed. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data output from and/or generated by a series of acts. In other words, these claims are directed to a mere machine-readable medium storing data content (a bitstream generated by a method).
Applicant therefore seeks to patent the storage of a bitstream in the abstract. In other words, the claim seeks to patent the content of the information (bitstream comprising video information) and not the process itself. Moreover, this stored bitstream does not impose any definitive physical organization on the data as there is no functional relationship between the bitstream and the storage medium. In conclusion, claim 20 is directed to mere data content (bitstream generated by a series of acts) stored as a bitstream on a computer-readable storage medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, the Examiner found and continues to find that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
As such, this claim is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. Therefore, claim 20 is anticipated by Naser, as Naser discloses a computer readable medium storing a coded bitstream (computer-readable medium may include instructions…to carry out the methods described herein) [0008].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naser et al. US 2025/0254341 A1, hereafter Naser, in view of Hou et al. “Non-EE2: A Fusion method of Intra Template Matching Prediction (Intra TMP)”, hereafter Hou.
Regarding claim 1, Naser discloses a method of video decoding (methods…for decoding video data) [0003], comprising:
receiving a bitstream including coded information of a current block in a current picture (input of the decoder includes a video bitstream; picture is partitioned; intra template matching tool may be enabled for CUs) [0090; 0139], the coded information indicating that the current block is coded based on intra template matching prediction (intraTMP) mode in which a prediction block of the current block is determined based on a cost value (SAD may be used as a cost function) [0137] between a template of the current block and a template of the prediction block (intra template matching prediction…that may copy a prediction block, e.g., the best prediction block, from the reconstructed part of the current frame, whose L-shaped template matches the current template) [0136],
determining a first plurality of candidate block vectors (BVs) in a first search range for a first subblock of the current block (within each region, the decoder may search for the template that may have SAD…with respect to the current one) [0138], the first search range being determined based on the BV of the current block (the dimensions of regions…may be set proportional to the block dimension) [0139], the first plurality of candidate BVs indicating a plurality of candidate prediction subblocks for the first subblock of the current block (within each region, the decoder may search for the template that may have SAD…with respect to the current one) [0138];
determining a BV of the first subblock from the first plurality of candidate BVs based on the intraTMP mode (the most similar template, to the current template in a reconstructed part of the current frame and may use the corresponding block as a prediction block) [0136];
reconstructing the first subblock based on the BV of the first subblock (combining (355) the decoded prediction residuals and the predicted block, an image block is reconstructed; use its corresponding block as a prediction block) [0090; 0138].
However, Naser fails to explicitly disclose the prediction block being referenced by a block vector (BV) of the current block; determining a refined BV of the first subblock from the first plurality of candidate BVs based on the intraTMP mode.
Hou, in an analogous environment, discloses the prediction block being referenced by a block vector (BV) of the current block (BV(n) of FIG. 1) [FIG. 1];
determining a refined BV of the first subblock from the first plurality of candidate BVs based on the intraTMP mode (then a refined search with step size 1 is performed around the best match to obtain the final best matching template) [section 1].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to refine a BV, as disclosed by Huo, the motivation being BD-rate savings [section 4].
Regarding claim 2, Naser and Huo address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Naser further discloses the determining the refined BV further comprises: determining a cost value between a template of the first subblock and a template of each of the plurality of candidate prediction subblocks (SAD may be used as a cost function) [0137]; and
determining one of the first plurality of candidate BVs of the first subblock as the refined BV of the first subblock that corresponds to a minimum cost value of the cost values between the template of the first subblock and the templates of the plurality of candidate prediction subblocks that corresponds to the first plurality of candidate BVs of the first subblock (decoder may search for the template that may have SAD, e.g., the least SAD, with respect to the current one and may use its corresponding block as a prediction block) [0137].
Regarding claim 4, Naser and Huo address all of the features with respect to claim 3 as outlined above.
Naser further discloses determining a second plurality of candidate BVs in a second search range for a second subblock of the current block (within each region, the decoder may search for the template that may have SAD…with respect to the current one) [0138], the second search range being determined based on the BV of the current block (the dimensions of regions…may be set proportional to the block dimension) [0139], the second search range being different from the first search range (see search ranges of FIG. 9) [FIG. 9].
Huo further discloses determining a refined BV of the second subblock from the second plurality of candidate BVs based on the intraTMP mode (then a refined search with step size 1 is performed around the best match to obtain the final best matching template) [section 1].
Regarding claim 6, Naser and Huo address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Naser further discloses the BV of the current block is determined from a plurality of candidate BVs of the current block that is defined in an initial search range according to the intraTMP mode (the most similar template, to the current template in a reconstructed part of the current frame and may use the corresponding block as a prediction block) [0136], and a boundary of the first search range is beyond a boundary of the initial search range (see search ranges of FIG. 9) [FIG. 9].
Regarding claim 7, Naser and Huo address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Naser further discloses the BV of the current block is determined from a plurality of candidate BVs of the current block that is defined in an initial search range according to the intraTMP mode (the most similar template, to the current template in a reconstructed part of the current frame and may use the corresponding block as a prediction block) [0136].
Huo further discloses a boundary of the first search range is within the boundary of the initial search range (then a refined search with step size 1 is performed around the best match to obtain the final best matching template) [section 1].
Regarding claim 9, Naser and Huo address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Huo further discloses the reconstructing further comprises: determining a prediction subblock of the first subblock from the plurality of candidate prediction subblocks, the prediction subblock of the first subblock being indicated by the refined BV (then a refined search with step size 1 is performed around the best match to obtain the final best matching template) [section 1].
Naser further discloses determining reconstructed samples of the first subblock as (i) samples of the prediction subblock of the first subblock (combining (355) the decoded prediction residuals and the predicted block, an image block is reconstructed; use its corresponding block as a prediction block) [0090; 0138] or (ii) as filtered samples of the prediction subblock that are filtered based on filter coefficients.
Regarding claim 10, Naser and Huo address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Huo further discloses determining a BV of another block in the current picture as one of (i) the refined BV of the first subblock and (ii) a weighted combination of the refined BV of the first subblock and a refined BV of a second subblock, the first subblock being a closest subblock of subblocks of the current block to the other block; and determining a prediction block of the other block that is indicated by the determined BV of the other block (the procedure of IntraTMP Fusion…fusion method is proposed as follows…where preSamples represent the final block) [section 2].
Claims 11, 12, 14, and 16-19 are drawn to an inverse encoding method corresponding to the decoding method of claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-9 and are therefore rejected in the corresponding inverse manner as above as disclosed by Naser (encoder may send video data to a decoder; encoding and decoding; video encoder 200) [0004; 0079; FIG. 2].
Regarding claim 20, computer readable medium claim 20 is drawn to the instructions corresponding to the encoding method of claim 11. Therefore, computer readable medium claim 20 corresponds to method claim 11 and is rejected for the same reasons of unpatentability as used above.
Claims 3, 5, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naser and Huo further in view of Unno et al. US 2022/0345740 A1, hereafter Unno.
Regarding claim 3, Naser and Huo address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Naser further discloses wherein: the BV of the current block is defined by a first coordinate BVx and a second coordinate BVy (block dimension (BlkW, BlkH)) [0139].
While Naser discloses search offsets determined by multiple of a constant (search range_w = a*BlkW) [0139], the combination fails to disclose the first search range is defined by a top left coordinate (BVx-OffsetLl, BV1y-OffsetTl) and a bottom right coordinate (BVx+OffsetRl, BVy+OffsetB1), the OffsetLl, the OffsetTl, the OffestR1, and the OffsetB1 being pre-defined constants.
Unno, in an analogous environment, discloses the first search range is defined by a top left coordinate (BVx-OffsetLl, BV1y-OffsetTl) and a bottom right coordinate (BVx+OffsetRl, BVy+OffsetB1), the OffsetLl, the OffsetTl, the OffestR1, and the OffsetB1 being pre-defined constants (as illustrated in FIG. 12, the refinement unit may divide the search range into target ranges A to D) [0091].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to offset a search area, as disclosed by Unno, with the invention disclosed by the combination, the motivation being reducing processing load [0011].
Regarding claim 5, Naser and Huo address all of the features with respect to claim 4 as outlined above.
While Naser discloses search offsets determined by multiple of a constant (search range_w = a*BlkW) [0139], the combination fails to disclose the second search range is defined by a top left coordinate (BVx-OffsetL2, BVy- OffsetT2) and a bottom right coordinate (BVx+OffsetR2, BVy+OffsetB2), the OffsetL2, the OffsetT2, the OffestR2, and the OffsetB2 being pre-defined constants and different from at least one corresponding offset of the first search range.
Unno, in an analogous environment, discloses the second search range is defined by a top left coordinate (BVx-OffsetL2, BVy- OffsetT2) and a bottom right coordinate (BVx+OffsetR2, BVy+OffsetB2), the OffsetL2, the OffsetT2, the OffestR2, and the OffsetB2 being pre-defined constants and different from at least one corresponding offset of the first search range (as illustrated in FIG. 12, the refinement unit may divide the search range into target ranges A to D) [0091].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to offset a search area, as disclosed by Unno, with the invention disclosed by the combination, the motivation being reducing processing load [0011].
Claims 13 and 15 are drawn to an inverse encoding method corresponding to the decoding method of claims 3 and 5 and are therefore rejected in the corresponding inverse manner as above as disclosed by Naser (encoder may send video data to a decoder; encoding and decoding; video encoder 200) [0004; 0079; FIG. 2].
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naser and Huo further in view of Pang et al. US 2016/0337661 A1, hereafter Pang.
Regarding claim 8, Naser and Huo address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
However, the combination fails to explicitly disclose a resolution of the BV of the current block is at one of a first integral pel and a first sub-pel, a resolution of the BV of the first subblock is at one of a second integral pel and a second sub-pel, the first integral pel includes one of 1-pel, 2-pel, 4-pel, and 8-pel, and the first sub-pel includes one of 1/2-pel, 1/4-pel, and 1/8-pel, and the second integral pel includes one of 1-pel, 2-pel, 4-pel, and 8-pel, and the second sub- pel includes one of 1/2-pel, 1/4-pel, and 1/8-pel.
Pang, in an analogous environment, discloses a resolution of the BV of the current block is at one of a first integral pel and a first sub-pel, a resolution of the BV of the first subblock is at one of a second integral pel and a second sub-pel, the first integral pel includes one of 1-pel, 2-pel, 4-pel, and 8-pel, and the first sub-pel includes one of 1/2-pel, 1/4-pel, and 1/8-pel, and the second integral pel includes one of 1-pel, 2-pel, 4-pel, and 8-pel, and the second sub- pel includes one of 1/2-pel, 1/4-pel, and 1/8-pel (a search region for the current block such that a size of the search region is smaller where the resolution is fractional-pixel than where the resolution is integer-pixel) [abstract].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the resolutions, as disclosed by Pang, with the invention disclosed by the combination, the motivation being gaining efficiencies [0035].
Claims 8 and 18 are drawn to an inverse encoding method corresponding to the decoding method of claims 3 and 5 and are therefore rejected in the corresponding inverse manner as above as disclosed by Naser (encoder may send video data to a decoder; encoding and decoding; video encoder 200) [0004; 0079; FIG. 2].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kim et al. US 2026/0006208 A1 discloses an intraTMP block vector.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFAN GADOMSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 12-8PM EST.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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.
STEFAN GADOMSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2485
/STEFAN GADOMSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights