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 08/14/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by XU et al. as published on US 20240380907 A1 hereinafter “XU”.
Regarding Claim 1. XU discloses a method of video processing, comprising:
determining, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, motion information of the video unit based on template matching for intra block copy (IBC) (0112-0147) or intra template matching prediction (IntraTMP) (0092), wherein the template matching for IBC or IntraTMP is different from template matching for inter prediction (0092, 0151-0155 and 0185-0189; Figures 4-9); and
performing the conversion based on the motion information (0044-0049, 0238 and 0250; Figures 9-10).
Regarding Claim 2. XU discloses the method of claim 1, wherein an early termination method during the template matching for IBC or IntraTMP is different from an early termination method during the template matching for inter prediction.
Regarding Claim 3. XU discloses the method of claim 1, wherein whether to and/or a way to use the template matching for IBC depends on video content (0033; Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 4. XU discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the video content comprises a screen content or a camera content (0033; Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 5. XU discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a fractional block vector is searched in the template matching for IBC (0201-0202).
Regarding Claim 6. XU discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a template shape of the template matching for IBC or IntraTMP is different from a template shape of the template matching for inter prediction, or wherein a template size of the template matching for IBC or IntraTMP is different from a template size of the template matching for inter prediction (0092-0093, 0101-0102 and 0151-0154; Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 7. XU discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a first search range used in the template matching for IBC or IntraTMP is larger than a search range used in the template matching for inter prediction (0092; Figure 3).
Regarding Claims 15-17. Claims 15-17 have similar limitations as to those treated in the above rejections, and are met by the references as discussed above, and has been rejected for the same reasons of anticipations as used in the rejection to claims discussed above.
Regarding Claim 18. An apparatus for video processing claim 18 is drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, apparatus claim 18 corresponds to method claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Regarding Claim 19. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions claim 19 is drawn to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of using the corresponding to the method of using the same as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 19 corresponds to the method claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Regarding Claim 20. Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (CRM) storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method. The claim does not recite that the CRM contains executable instruction, that when executed, implement the encoding method. The bitstream is a product produced by the encoding method. Therefore, the claims are not limited to the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. (See MPEP 2113 - Product-by-Process claims.) Hence, the encoding method steps recited are given patentable weight only to structures in the bitstream that are implied by the steps.
To be given patentable weight, the CRM 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 CRM 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).
The CRM storing the claimed bitstream in claim 20 merely services as a support for the CRM of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and the CRM.
Therefore, the structure bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III).
Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by XU which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (0305 and 0308; Figure 11).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU as applied to claim 1 above, in view of WANG et al. as published on US 20250184483 A1 hereinafter “WANG”.
Regarding Claim 8. XU discloses the method of claim 1, but failed to disclose wherein one or more non-adjacent video units are used to construct an IBC or IntraTMP candidate list.
WANG, however, in the same field of endeavor, shows wherein one or more non-adjacent video units are used to construct an IBC or IntraTMP candidate list (0359-0363 and 0367-0378).
It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of WANG in the teaching of XU to construct an IBC or IntraTMP candidate list in order to improve the coding efficiency and effective video coding.
Regarding Claim 9. XU further discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the IBC or IntraTMP candidate list comprises an IBC AMVP or merge list (0320 and 0359-0363).
Regarding Claims 10-11. Claims 10-11 have similar limitations as to those treated in the above rejections, and are met by the references as discussed above, and has been rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in the rejection to claims rejected above.
Regarding Claim 12. XU further discloses the method of claim 8, wherein coding information from the one or more non-adjacent video units is reordered, and/or wherein coding information of a first video unit coded with a first coding mode is used before a second video unit coded with a second coding mode (0460 and 0486).
Regarding Claim 13. Claim 13 has similar limitations as to those treated in the above rejections, and are met by the references as discussed above, and has been rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in the rejection to claims rejected above.
Regarding Claim 14. XU further discloses the method of claim 13, wherein if the non-adjacent video unit is coded with a reconstruction-reordered IBC (RR-IBC) (0364-0365; Figure 43), a block vector is modified same as candidates from adjacent video units or history based motion vector prediction (HMVP) candidates (0272-0276).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASMAMAW G TARKO whose telephone number is (571)272-7493. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am-5pm 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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/ASMAMAW G TARKO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights