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
Claims 1-20 filed on 07/11/2025 are pending.
Note: Claim 20 is a recording medium storing a bitstream of a video and double rejected.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-2, 8 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zheng et al. (“Zheng”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2009/0010557 A1]
Regarding claim 1, Zheng meets the claim limitations as follows:
A method for video processing, comprising:
determining, for a conversion (i.e. ‘the process of image encoding’) [para. 0003-0004] between a current video unit of a video (i.e. ‘coding blocks’) and a bitstream of the video (i.e. ‘to finally obtain a encoded bit stream’),
a content type (i.e. ‘image block transform coefficients’ or ‘residual coefficients’) of the current video unit (i.e. ‘The partitioned image blocks’) based on a prediction mode (i.e. ‘intra coding’ or ‘inter-coding’) [para. 0003-0004] for coding at least one video unit associated with the current video unit [para. 0003-0004: ‘during intra coding is the values of image block transform coefficients, while … during inter-coding is values of residual coefficients’]; and
performing the conversion (i.e. ‘the process of image encoding’) based on the content type [para. 0003-0004: ‘The partitioned image blocks … then transformed … and … then subject to entropy coding to entropy coding …’].
Regarding claim 2, Zheng meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one video unit comprises at least one of the following: at least one spatial neighboring video unit adjacent to the current video unit [Fig. 1; para. 0004, 0017, 0044, 0047: ‘intra coding’; ‘neighbor blocks of a current block’], at least one spatial neighboring video unit non-adjacent to the current video unit, at least one temporal neighboring video unit adjacent to the current video unit [para. 0004, 0017, 0027-0029, 0032, 0047: ‘inter-coding’; ‘neighbor blocks of a current block’; ‘the current block according to different frame types and motion vector information on neighbor blocks of the current block’; ‘P frame, and B frame’], or at least one temporal neighboring video unit non-adjacent to the current video unit, or wherein the at least one video unit is adjacent to the current video unit, or the at least one video unit is non-adjacent to the current video unit, or wherein the at least one video unit comprises at least one of the following: at least one spatial neighboring video unit in a current picture comprising the current video unit, or at least one temporal neighboring video unit in a reference picture for the current video unit, or wherein the at least one video unit is smaller than the current video unit [Fig. 1], or the at least one video unit is larger than or equal to the current video unit [Fig. 1].
Regarding claim 8, Zheng meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein performing the conversion comprises: determining, based on the content type of the current video unit (e.g., ‘image block transform coefficients’ or ‘residual coefficients’), first information regarding applying a first prediction mode on the current video unit (e.g., ‘intra coding’ or ‘inter-coding’) [para. 0003-0004]; and performing the conversion (i.e. ‘the process of image encoding’) based on the first information [para. 0003-0004: ‘The partitioned image blocks … then transformed … and … then subject to entropy coding to entropy coding …’].
Regarding claim 10, Zheng meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 8, wherein if the content type of the current video unit is a first type (e.g., ‘image block transform coefficients’), the first prediction mode (e.g., ‘intra coding’) [para. 0003-0004] is not allowed to be used to code the current video unit, and/or the first prediction mode is not used to code the current video unit.
Regarding claim 16, Zheng meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video unit into the bitstream [para. 0003-0004: ‘The partitioned image blocks … then subject to entropy coding to finally obtain a encoded bit stream’].
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al. (“Xu”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2021/0314610 A1]
Regarding claim 20, Zheng meets the claim limitations as follows:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video [Fig. 13, 14; para. 0252: ‘The processor(s) 1302’; ‘The memory (memories) 1304 … used for storing data and code’; para. 0481: ’20. A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream’] which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for video processing [Claim 20’s recitation of a bitstream generated by a method is 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 recording medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). To be given patentable weight, recording medium 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 recording medium 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). Therefore the structure of the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III).],
wherein the method comprises: determining a content type of a current video unit of the video based on a prediction mode for coding at least one video unit associated with the current video unit; and generating the bitstream based on the content type.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 of this title, 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 3-5, 11 and 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Xu et al. (“Xu”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2021/0314610 A1]
Regarding claim 3, Zheng meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one video unit comprises a first reference video unit for the current video unit [Fig. 1; para. 0004, 0017, 0044, 0047: ‘intra coding’; ‘neighbor blocks of a current block’; ‘inter-coding frames’].
Zheng does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein the at least one video unit comprises a first reference video unit for the current video unit.
However in the same field of endeavor Xu discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the at least one video unit comprises a first reference video unit for the current video unit [para. 0005: ‘the current video block is referenced from a reference video block …’].
Zheng and Xu are combinable because they are from the same field of video coding.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Zheng and Xu as motivation to include a reference video block for intra-coding or inter-coding.
Regarding claim 4, Zheng meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 3, wherein the first reference video unit is a block or subblock determined based on a result of adding a displacement (i.e. ‘motion vector’) [Fig. 2; Abstract; para. 0028-0029, 0032] to one of the following: a location of the current video unit [para. 0065: ‘compensation of intra-coding block’], a location of a neighboring video unit of the current video unit [Fig. 1; para. 0004, 0017, 0044, 0047: ‘intra coding’; ‘neighbor blocks of a current block’; ‘inter-coding frames’], or a location of a reference video unit for the current video unit (i.e. motion compensation’) [para. 0065, 0069].
Zheng does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein the first reference video unit is a block or subblock determined based on a result of adding a displacement to one of the following: a location of the current video unit, a location of a neighboring video unit of the current video unit, or a location of a reference video unit for the current video unit.
However in the same field of endeavor Xu discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the first reference video unit is a block or subblock (i.e. ‘a corresponding block of the sub-CU’) determined based on a result of adding a displacement (i.e. ‘the temporal vector’) to one of the following [para. 0049-0055; 0130: ‘a corresponding block of the sub-CU is identified …by adding to the coordinate of the current CU the temporal vector’]: a location of the current video unit, a location of a neighboring video unit of the current video unit, or a location of a reference video unit for the current video unit.
Zheng and Xu are combinable because they are from the same field of video coding.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Zheng and Xu as motivation to include the temporal vector for inter-coding.
Regarding claim 5, Zheng meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 4.
Zheng does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The method of claim 4, wherein the displacement is predetermined, or the displacement is dependent on a motion vector of the current video unit, or the displacement is dependent on a block vector of the current video unit.
However in the same field of endeavor Xu discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the displacement is predetermined, or the displacement is dependent on a motion vector of the current video unit (i.e. ‘the temporal vector’) [para. 0049-0055; 0130: ‘by adding to the coordinate of the current CU the temporal vector’], or the displacement is dependent on a block vector of the current video unit [Fig. 19; Abstract; para. 0008, 0013].
Zheng and Xu are combinable because they are from the same field of video coding.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Zheng and Xu as motivation to include a block vector or the temporal vector for inter-coding.
Regarding claim 11, Zheng meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 10, wherein the first type comprises screen content, and wherein the first prediction mode comprises at least one of the following: an intra luma fusion [para. 0003-0004: ‘intra coding’], a chroma fusion, an intraTMP fusion, a decoder side intra mode derivation (DIMD) blending, a template-based intra mode derivation (TIMD) blending, a regular inter advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP), a regular inter merge, an affine AMVP, an affine merge, an overlap subblock based motion compensation (OBMC), a local illumination compensation (LIC), a spatial geometric partitioning mode (SGPM) blending, a geometric partitioning mode (GPM) blending, a combined inter and intra prediction (CIIP), a multi-hypothesis prediction (MHP), a bi-directional optical flow (BDOF), a prediction refinement with optical flow (PROF), a decoder side motion vector refinement (DMVR), an AMVP-merge, a merge mode with motion vector difference (MMVD), a template matching (TM), an OBMC for affine AMVP, an OBMC for affine merge, an OBMC for inter AMVP, an OBMC for inter merge, or an OBMC for MHP when a base hypothesis is affine AMVP or affine merge.
Zheng does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein the first type comprises screen content, and wherein the first prediction mode comprises at least one of the following: an intra luma fusion, a chroma fusion, an intraTMP fusion, a decoder side intra mode derivation (DIMD) blending, a template-based intra mode derivation (TIMD) blending, a regular inter advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP), a regular inter merge, an affine AMVP, an affine merge, an overlap subblock based motion compensation (OBMC), a local illumination compensation (LIC), a spatial geometric partitioning mode (SGPM) blending, a geometric partitioning mode (GPM) blending, a combined inter and intra prediction (CIIP), a multi-hypothesis prediction (MHP), a bi-directional optical flow (BDOF), a prediction refinement with optical flow (PROF), a decoder side motion vector refinement (DMVR), an AMVP-merge, a merge mode with motion vector difference (MMVD), a template matching (TM), an OBMC for affine AMVP, an OBMC for affine merge, an OBMC for inter AMVP, an OBMC for inter merge, or an OBMC for MHP when a base hypothesis is affine AMVP or affine merge.
However in the same field of endeavor Xu discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the first type comprises screen content [Fig. 1; para. 0048-0056: ‘CPR in HEVC Screen Content Coding Extensions’], and wherein the first prediction mode comprises at least one of the following: an intra luma fusion [Fig. 1: CPR], a chroma fusion, an intraTMP fusion, a decoder side intra mode derivation (DIMD) blending, a template-based intra mode derivation (TIMD) blending, a regular inter advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP), a regular inter merge, an affine AMVP, an affine merge, an overlap subblock based motion compensation (OBMC), a local illumination compensation (LIC), a spatial geometric partitioning mode (SGPM) blending, a geometric partitioning mode (GPM) blending, a combined inter and intra prediction (CIIP), a multi-hypothesis prediction (MHP), a bi-directional optical flow (BDOF), a prediction refinement with optical flow (PROF), a decoder side motion vector refinement (DMVR), an AMVP-merge, a merge mode with motion vector difference (MMVD), a template matching (TM), an OBMC for affine AMVP, an OBMC for affine merge, an OBMC for inter AMVP, an OBMC for inter merge, or an OBMC for MHP when a base hypothesis is affine AMVP or affine merge.
Zheng and Xu are combinable because they are from the same field of video coding.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Zheng and Xu as motivation to include a reference video block for intra-coding or inter-coding.
Regarding claim 17, Zheng meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding (i.e. ‘decoder’) the current video unit from the bitstream [para. 0003-0004, 0042, 0099: ‘The partitioned image blocks … then subject to entropy coding to finally obtain a encoded bit stream’].
Zheng does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video unit from the bitstream.
However in the same field of endeavor Xu discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video unit from the bitstream [para. 0040: ‘used by a decoder of video bitstream …’].
Zheng and Xu are combinable because they are from the same field of video coding.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Zheng and Xu as motivation to include a decoder for decompressing bitstreams.
Regarding claim 18, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 1 in the apparatus form and rejected as per discussion for claim 1.
Zheng does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
An apparatus for video processing comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, ….
However in the same field of endeavor Xu discloses the deficient claim as follows:
An apparatus for video processing comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon [Fig. 13, 14; para. 0252: ‘The processor(s) 1302’; ‘The memory (memories) 1304 … used for storing data and code’; para. 0481: ’20. A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream’], wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, ….
Zheng and Xu are combinable because they are from the same field of video coding.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Zheng and Xu as motivation to include a processor with memory so as to generate and store a bitstream.
Regarding claim 19, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 1 in the form of “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions” and rejected as per discussion for claim 1.
Zheng does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform acts comprising: …
However in the same field of endeavor Xu discloses the deficient claim as follows:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform acts comprising [Fig. 13, 14; para. 0252: ‘The processor(s) 1302’; ‘The memory (memories) 1304 … used for storing data and code’; para. 0481: ’20. A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream’]: ….
Zheng and Xu are combinable because they are from the same field of video coding.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Zheng and Xu as motivation to include a processor with memory so as to generate and store a bitstream.
Regarding claim 20, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 1 in the form of “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video” and rejected as per discussion for claim 1.
Zheng does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
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: …
However in the same field of endeavor Xu discloses the deficient claim as follows:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video [Fig. 13, 14; para. 0252: ‘The processor(s) 1302’; ‘The memory (memories) 1304 … used for storing data and code’; para. 0481: ’20. A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream’] which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for video processing: …
Zheng and Xu are combinable because they are from the same field of video coding.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Zheng and Xu as motivation to include a processor with memory so as to generate and store a bitstream.
Claims 6 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Sato (“Sato”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2012/0147960 A1]
Regarding claim 6, Zheng meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Zheng does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one video unit comprises a second reference video unit for a first reference video unit for the current video unit.
However in the same field of endeavor Sato discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the at least one video unit comprises a second reference video unit (i.e. B’, intra-template matching mvB) for a first reference video unit (i.e. ‘B’) for the current video unit (i.e. A, inter-template matching MV) [Fig. 10, 11; para. 0168-0192].
Zheng and Sato are combinable because they are from the same field of video coding.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Zheng and Sato as motivation to include intra-template coding or inter-template coding for In-Screen Prediction to solve technical problems cited by Sato [para. 0033-0038].
Regarding claim 9, Zheng meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 8.
Zheng does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The method of claim 8, wherein the first information comprises at least one of the following: whether the first prediction mode is allowed to be used to code the current video unit, or whether the first prediction mode is used to code the current video unit, or wherein the first information is absent from the bitstream, or wherein an indication indicating the first information is not comprised in the bitstream.
However in the same field of endeavor Sato discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the first information comprises at least one of the following: whether the first prediction mode is allowed to be used [Fig. 4: ‘prediction image selection unit 78’] to code the current video unit, or whether the first prediction mode is used to code the current video unit [Fig. 4: ‘prediction image selection unit 78’], or wherein the first information is absent from the bitstream, or wherein an indication indicating the first information is not comprised in the bitstream.
Zheng and Sato are combinable because they are from the same field of video coding.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Zheng and Sato as motivation to include intra-template coding or inter-template coding for In-Screen Prediction to solve technical problems cited by Sato [para. 0033-0038].
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Sato in further view of Xu et al. (“Xu”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2021/0314610 A1]
Regarding claim 7, Zheng meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Zheng does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The method of claim 6, wherein the first reference video unit is coded with an inter mode, and the second reference video unit is determined based on a result of adding a motion vector associated with the first reference video unit and a position of the first reference video unit, or wherein the first reference video unit is coded with an intraTMP mode, and the second reference video unit is determined based on a result of adding a block vector associated with the first reference video unit and a position of the first reference video unit, or wherein the first reference video unit is coded with an intra block copy (IBC) mode, and the second reference video unit is determined based on a result of adding a block vector associated with the first reference video unit and a position of the first reference video unit.
However in the same field of endeavor Sato discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the first reference video unit is coded with an inter mode (i.e. A, inter-template matching MV) [Fig. 10, 11; para. 0168-0192], and the second reference video unit (i.e. B’, intra-template matching mvB) [Fig. 10, 11; para. 0168-0192] is determined based on a result of adding a motion vector associated with the first reference video unit and a position of the first reference video unit, or
wherein the first reference video unit is coded with an intraTMP mode [Fig. 10, 11: ‘intra-template matching’], and the second reference video unit (i.e. A, inter-template matching MV) [Fig. 10, 11; para. 0168-0192] is determined based on a result of adding a block vector associated with the first reference video unit and a position of the first reference video unit, or
wherein the first reference video unit is coded with an intra block copy (IBC) mode, and the second reference video unit is determined based on a result of adding a block vector associated with the first reference video unit and a position of the first reference video unit.
Zheng and Sato are combinable because they are from the same field of video coding.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Zheng and Sato as motivation to include intra-template coding or inter-template coding for In-Screen Prediction to solve technical problems cited by Sato [para. 0033-0038].
Zheng does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein the first reference video unit is coded with an inter mode, and the second reference video unit is determined based on a result of adding a motion vector associated with the first reference video unit and a position of the first reference video unit, or
wherein the first reference video unit is coded with an intraTMP mode, and the second reference video unit is determined based on a result of adding a block vector associated with the first reference video unit and a position of the first reference video unit, or
wherein the first reference video unit is coded with an intra block copy (IBC) mode, and the second reference video unit is determined based on a result of adding a block vector associated with the first reference video unit and a position of the first reference video unit.
However in the same field of endeavor Xu discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the first reference video unit is coded with an inter mode, and the second reference video unit (i.e. ‘a corresponding block of the sub-CU’) is determined based on a result of adding a motion vector (i.e. ‘the temporal vector’) associated with the first reference video unit and a position of the first reference video unit [para. 0049-0055; 0130: ‘a corresponding block of the sub-CU is identified …by adding to the coordinate of the current CU the temporal vector’], or
wherein the first reference video unit is coded with an intraTMP mode, and the second reference video unit (i.e. ‘a corresponding block of the sub-CU’) is determined based on a result of adding a block vector (i.e. ‘the temporal vector’) associated with the first reference video unit and a position of the first reference video unit [para. 0049-0055; 0130: ‘a corresponding block of the sub-CU is identified …by adding to the coordinate of the current CU the temporal vector’], or
wherein the first reference video unit is coded with an intra block copy (IBC) mode (i.e. ‘IBC’) [para. 0044], and the second reference video unit (i.e. ‘a corresponding block of the sub-CU’) is determined based on a result of adding a block vector (i.e. ‘the temporal vector’) associated with the first reference video unit and a position of the first reference video unit [para. 0049-0055; 0130: ‘a corresponding block of the sub-CU is identified …by adding to the coordinate of the current CU the temporal vector’].
Zheng, Sato and Xu are combinable because they are from the same field of video coding.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Zheng, Sato and Xu as motivation to include the temporal vector for inter-coding.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Pang (“Pang”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2015/0016533 A1]
Regarding claim 12, Zheng meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 10.
Zheng does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The method of claim 10, wherein the first type comprises at least one of natural content or camera-captured content, and the first prediction mode comprises at least one of the following: an IBC, a palette mode, a block differential pulse coded modulation (BDPCM), an intraTMP, sample-based affine AMVP, or sample-based affine merge.
However in the same field of endeavor Pang discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the first type comprises at least one of natural content [para. 0071: : ‘IBC’; ‘natural content’] or camera-captured content, and the first prediction mode comprises at least one of the following: an IBC [Fig. 5; para. 0071: ‘IBC’; ‘natural content’], a palette mode, a block differential pulse coded modulation (BDPCM), an intraTMP, sample-based affine AMVP, or sample-based affine merge.
Zheng and Pang are combinable because they are from the same field of video coding.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Zheng and Pang as motivation to include IBC mode for natural content video for coding efficiency as reported in the video standard JCT-VC M0350 [Pang: para. 0071].
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding claim 13, it is 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.
Regarding claim 14, it is 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.
Regarding claim 15, it is 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights