DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200404287 A1 (Xu287)
US 20200288120 A1 (Xu120)
US 20210250580 A1 (Chen)
US 20220159295 A1 (ordered BV based on RD cost, para 71)
US 20200084453 A1 (refinements of BV based on template differences , para 21-22, 126-127)
US 20170223379 A1 (Fig.12)
US 20220182638 A1 ((block vector predictor is modified to be within the current CTU by clipping outside {para 266-267, 186}. Block vector and IBC definition { para 5, 164} ))
US 20220368916 A1 (para 358: BV modified based on width/height)
US 20230217013 A1 (BV ordering with template matching)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, in second limitation, recites “an adjusted candidate BVP” however in the first limitation it claims “a candidate BVP”, and no other explanation is given as to why this is called “adjusted candidate BVP”, adjusted from what? Examiner assumes this adjusted candidate BVP is generated by adjusting the candidate BVP predictor cited in the first limitations.
The second limitation is overall is vague. It seems the last portion should be in a wherein clause, i.e. “a second sample displaced from the current block by a second amount indicated by the adjusted candidate BVP has a coordinate inside the range of values”.
Other independent claims have similar issues and dependent claims inherit the issues.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu287 in view of Chen.
Regarding Claims 1, 8, 15 :Xu287 teaches a method / apparatus comprising processor and memory storing instructions when executed by the processor/non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of an apparatus [(para 99)] comprising:
determining, for a current block, a value of a coordinate of a sample is outside a range of values of the coordinate for samples in a reference region, wherein the sample is displaced from the current block by an amount indicated by a candidate block vector predictor (BVP), wherein the reference region is rectangular [(Fig.8 #832, para 105 )] in shape and overlaps with a second reference region that is neither rectangular nor square, the second reference region defining valid positions of BVPs for the current block: [(Fig.8 and para 105; the L-shaped shaded region is the region for block 810 for IBC mode or valid positions for BVP . Also see para 109-111 and Fig.9A, the search range/region for valid candidates include L-shaped 912-914 )] constructing, based on the determining and the second reference region and for the current block, a list of candidate BVPs excluding the candidate BVP and comprising an adjusted candidate BVP, [(para 104, 138 )] a second sample displaced from the current block by a second amount indicated by the adjusted candidate BVP has a coordinate inside the range of values [(para 154-156 )]
and coding the current block based on the ordered list of candidate BVPs. [(para 101, 135 )]
Xu287 does not explicitly show ordering the list of candidate BVPs based on the costs for the candidate BVPs in the list
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Chen teaches ordering the list of candidate BVPs based on the costs for the candidate BVPs in the list [(para 32, 31-33, 177, 165)] .
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts to improve coding efficiency.
Xu287 additionally teaches, with respect to claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the value of the coordinate of the sample is outside a bound of the range of values of the coordinate for the samples in the reference region. [(para 146-149)]
Xu287 additionally teaches, with respect to claim 3 The method of claim 2, wherein the coordinate is an x-coordinate or a y-coordinate. [(para 148-149)]
Xu287 additionally teaches, with respect to claim 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the reference region comprises reconstructed samples in a frame containing the current block. [(para 110 )]
Xu287 in view of Chen additionally teaches, with respect to claim 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the coding the current block based on the ordered candidate BVPs in the list comprises: determining a BV based on the ordered list of candidate BVPs: and coding the current block based on a reference block pointed to by the BV. [(Chen para 32, 31-33, 177, 165; Xu287 para 101 )]
Xu287 in view of Chen additionally teaches, with respect to claim 6. The method of claim 1, wherein a cost for a candidate BVP is derived based on differences between a template of the current block and a template of a reference block displaced relative to the current block by an amount determined by the candidate BVP. [(Chen para131-132 )] .
Xu287 in view of Chen additionally teaches, with respect to claim 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the ordering the candidate BVPs in the list based on the costs comprises ordering the candidate BVPs in ascending order based on the costs. [(Chen reordering based on cost {para 132}, with the goal of low/minimum cost {para 65, 177})]
Regarding Claims 8-14 and 16-20: See analyses of claims 2-7
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12382089. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims anticipate the instant claims. The instance claims are broader contains subset of limitations from the patented claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights