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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,445,601. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 2-21 are anticipated by claims 1-20 of the U.S. Patent.
Claims 2-4 are anticipated by claim 1 of the U.S. Patent. Claim 5 is anticipated by claim 4 of the U.S. Patent. Claim 6 is anticipated by claim 6 of the U.S. Patent. Claim 7 is anticipated by claim 8 of the U.S. Patent. Claim 8 is anticipated by claim 9 of the U.S. Patent. Claim 9 is anticipated by claim 10 of the U.S. Patent. Claim 10 is anticipated by claim 11 of the U.S. Patent. Claim 11 is anticipated by claim 4 of the U.S. Patent. Claim 12 is anticipated by claim 5 of the U.S. Patent.
Claims 13-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,445,601 in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. 2022/0038693), hereinafter Zhang and Xu et al. (U.S. 2020/0120353), hereinafter Xu or Zhang, Xu and Wang et al. (WO 2023/274372), hereinafter Wang as cited below.
See below for missing limitations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the U.S. Patent with the missing limitations as taught by Zhang to improve the performance of current video codec technologies to provide better compression ratios (Zhang [0003]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5-10, 13-14 and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. 2022/0038693), hereinafter Zhang in view of Xu et al. (U.S. 2020/0120353), hereinafter Xu. Zhang was cited in the Applicant’s IDS dated 12/29/25.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses a method for video decoding, comprising:
decoding coded information in a bitstream (Zhang [0259]) indicating that a luma coding region and a chroma coding region are partitioned using separate coding tree structures, a current region in a current picture including the luma coding region and the chroma coding region (Zhang [0322]);
determining that a first luma block associated with a first position in a reconstructed luma area is predicted by a prediction mode using a first luma block vector (BV) (Zhang [0322] and [0325]), the reconstructed luma area that is in the luma coding region being collocated with a current chroma block that is in the chroma coding region (Zhang [0322] and [0325]);
deriving a chroma BV of the current chroma block based on the first luma BV of the first luma block (Zhang [0322]).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose reconstructing the current chroma block based on the chroma BV.
However, Xu teaches decoding coded information in a bitstream indicating that a luma coding region and a chroma coding region are partitioned using separate coding tree structures, a current region in a current picture including the luma coding region and the chroma coding region (Xu Abstract);
deriving a chroma BV of the current chroma block based on the first luma BV of the first luma block (Xu Abstract); and
reconstructing the current chroma block based on the chroma BV (Xu Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang’s method with the missing limitations as taught by Xu to improve coding efficiency of the IBC mode in various scenarios, such as when separate luma and chroma coding trees are enabled (Xu [0114]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the prediction mode includes one of (i) an intra block copy (IBC) mode and (ii) an intra template matching prediction (IntraTMP) mode (Zhang [0321]-[0322]).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the reconstructing comprises:
determining a reference block in the current picture based on the chroma BV (Zhang [0297], [0322] and fig. 18); and
reconstructing the current chroma block based on the reference block (Zhang [0297] and fig. 18).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the deriving the chroma BV comprises:
deriving the chroma BV based on the first luma BV of the first luma block and a second luma BV of a second luma block, the second luma block being associated with a second position in the reconstructed luma area that is collocated with the current chroma block (Xu [0114]-[0115]).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the coded information in the bitstream indicates that the chroma BV is derived from the first luma BV of the first luma block (Zhang [0686]).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the deriving the chroma BV comprises:
deriving the chroma BV by scaling the first luma BV with a scaling factor that depends on a chroma subsampling format (Zhang [0322] and Xu [0117]).
The same motivation or claim 1 applies to claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 3, wherein
the current region is a current coding tree unit (CTU) (Zhang [0301]),
the luma coding region is a luma coding tree block (CTB) in the current CTU (Zhang [0180] and [0528]), and
the chroma coding region is a chroma CTB in the current CTU (Zhang [0530]).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 3, wherein a current coding tree unit (CTU) in the current picture is split into four coding units using a quad-tree split, and the current region is a coding unit of the four coding units (Zhang [0288]).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang discloses a method for video encoding, comprising:
determining that a first luma block associated with a first position in a reconstructed luma area is predicted by a prediction mode using a first luma block vector (BV) (Zhang [0322] and [0325]), the reconstructed luma area that is in a luma coding region being collocated with a current chroma block that is in a chroma coding region (Zhang [0322] and [0325]), a current region in a current picture including the luma coding region and the chroma coding region that are partitioned using separate coding tree structures (Zhang [0322]);
deriving a chroma BV of the current chroma block based on the first luma BV of the first luma block (Zhang [0322]); and
encoding, in a bitstream, (ii) information indicating that the luma coding region and the chroma coding region are partitioned using the separate coding tree structures (Zhang [0563]-[0564]).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose encoding the current chroma block based on the chroma BV.
However, Xu teaches encoding, in a bitstream, (i) the current chroma block based on the chroma BV (Xu Abstract and [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang’s method with the missing limitations as taught by Xu to improve coding efficiency of the IBC mode in various scenarios, such as when separate luma and chroma coding trees are enabled (Xu [0114]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the prediction mode includes one of (i) an intra block copy (IBC) mode and (ii) an intra template matching prediction (IntraTMP) mode (see claim 3).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the encoding the current chroma block comprises: determining a reference block in the current picture based on the chroma BV; and encoding the current chroma block based on the reference block (see claim 5).
Claim 16 recites analogous limitations to claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 16 discloses an inverse of decoding and Zhang discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Zhang [0297], figs. 1 and 5)
Regarding claim 17, Zhang in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the deriving the chroma BV comprises: deriving the chroma BV based on the first luma BV of the first luma block and a second luma BV of a second luma block, the second luma block being associated with a second position in the reconstructed luma area that is collocated with the current chroma block (see claim 6).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the information in the bitstream further indicates that the chroma BV is derived from the first luma BV of the first luma block (see claim 7).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the deriving the chroma BV comprises: deriving the chroma BV by scaling the first luma BV with a scaling factor that depends on a chroma subsampling format (see claim 8).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the current region is a current coding tree unit (CTU), the luma coding region is a luma coding tree block (CTB) in the current CTU, and the chroma coding region is a chroma CTB in the current CTU (see claim 9).
Regarding claim 21, Zhang in view of Xu teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform a method of encoding a bitstream (Zhang [0035] and claim 15) comprising: determining that a first luma block associated with a first position in a reconstructed luma area is predicted by a prediction mode using a first luma block vector (BV), the reconstructed luma area that is in a luma coding region being collocated with a current chroma block that is in a chroma coding region, a current region in a current picture including the luma coding region and the chroma coding region that are partitioned using separate coding tree structures; deriving a chroma BV of the current chroma block based on the first luma BV of the first luma block; encoding, in the bitstream, (i) the current chroma block based on the chroma BV and (ii) information indicating that the luma coding region and the chroma coding region are partitioned using the separate coding tree structures; and transmitting the encoded bitstream (Zhang [0616] and fig. 22) (see claim 13 for remaining limitations).
Claim(s) 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Xu as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Coban et al. (Algorithm description of Enhanced Compression Model 7 (ECM 7), 20-28 October 2022, JVET-AB2025, cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 12/29/25). A copy of Coban has been attached.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 3. Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the prediction mode is the IntraTMP mode, and the deriving the chroma BV includes deriving the chroma BV based on the first luma BV of the first luma block coded with the IntraTMP mode
However, Coban teaches, wherein
the prediction mode is the IntraTMP mode (Coban p. 9, section 3.1.7.1), and
the deriving the chroma BV includes deriving the chroma BV based on the first luma BV of the first luma block coded with the IntraTMP mode (Coban p. 9, section 3.1.7.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and apparatus taught by Zhang in view of Xu with the missing limitations as taught by Coban to find a best matching template (Coban p. 9, fig. 5).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang in view of Xu and Coban teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the prediction mode is the IntraTMP mode, and the deriving the chroma BV includes deriving the chroma BV based on the first luma BV of the first luma block coded with the IntraTMP mode (see claim 4).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Xu as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Filippov et al. (U.S. 2024/0179301), hereinafter Filippov. Filippov was cited in the Applicant’s IDS dated 12/29/25.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 3, wherein determining an initial prediction using the prediction mode and the chroma BV, the initial prediction being based on a reference chroma block indicated by the chroma BV (Zhang [0322], [0325] and fig. 18).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose the first luma block is predicted using the prediction mode and a local illumination compensation (LIC) mode; and the reconstructing the current chroma block includes: determining an initial prediction using the prediction mode and the chroma BV, the initial prediction being based on a reference chroma block indicated by the chroma BV; determining LIC parameters for the current chroma block based on a current template of the current chroma block and a reference template of the reference chroma block; determining a prediction based on the initial prediction and the LIC parameters using the LIC mode; and reconstructing the current chroma block based on the prediction
However Filippov teaches a method, wherein
the first luma block is predicted using the prediction mode and a local illumination compensation (LIC) mode (Filippov [0029] and [0085]); and
the reconstructing the current chroma block includes (Filippov [0144] and [0085]):
determining an initial prediction using the prediction mode and the chroma BV, the initial prediction being based on a reference chroma block indicated by the chroma BV (Filippov [0144] and [0085]);
determining LIC parameters for the current chroma block based on a current template of the current chroma block and a reference template of the reference chroma block (Filippov [0144] and [0085]);
determining a prediction based on the initial prediction and the LIC parameters using the LIC mode (Filippov [0144] and [0085]); and
reconstructing the current chroma block based on the prediction (Filippov [0164], [0108], [0085] and fig. 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and apparatus taught by Zhang in view of Xu with the missing limitations as taught by Filippov to improve video coding efficiency by reducing the amount of data sent (Filippov [0004]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Xu as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (WO 2023/274372), hereinafter Wang. Wang was cited in the Applicant’s IDS dated 12/29/25. A copy of Wang has been attached.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 3, wherein
the reconstructing the current chroma block includes determining a prediction using the prediction mode and the chroma BV (Zhang [0322] and [0325]).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the first luma block is predicted using the prediction mode and a skip mode; and reconstructing the current chroma block based on the prediction using the skip mode and with no residual.
However, Wang teaches a method, wherein
the first luma block is predicted using the prediction mode and a skip mode (Wang p. 18); and
the reconstructing the current chroma block includes
determining a prediction using the prediction mode and the chroma BV (Wang p. 17); and
reconstructing the current chroma block based on the prediction using the skip mode and with no residual (Wang p. 58, [0091] and p. 10, [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Zhang in view of Xu with the missing limitations as taught by Wang to improve coding efficiency and coding quality (Wang Abstract).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Coban et al. (Algorithm description of Enhanced Compression Model 7 (ECM 7), 20-28 October 2022, JVET-AB2025, cited in and provided with Applicant’s IDS dated 10/3/23) further discloses an IntraTMP mode for IBC (p. 9), a local illumination compensation (LIC) mode (p. 17), an IBC merge mode (p. 42) and IBC combination modes (pgs. 2-3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW KWAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 on (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.
/MATTHEW K KWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights