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 submitted on 9/29/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-7, and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (WO 2022262818 A1) (hereinafter Zhang)
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses:
A method for video processing, comprising:
determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, a first block vector (BV) candidate of the current video block, the first BV candidate being associated with a first reference block of the current video block, the first reference block comprising at least one reconstructed sample in a current picture and at least one unreconstructed sample in the current picture; [See Zhang, ¶ 0099-00100 discloses a method to be implemented during a conversion between a target video block of a video and a bitstream of the video; See Zhang, pg. 61 line 29 – pg. 62 line 6 discloses that a “template-based-coded” block may refer to a block using a template matching based method in the coding/decoding process to derive or refine coded information, such as template-matching based motion derivation, template-matching based motion list reconstruction, LIC, sign prediction, template-matching based block vector (e.g., used in IBC mode) derivation; See Zhang, pg. 32 line 25 – pg. 34 line 5 discloses determining an MVP candidate based on a reference block.]
applying a first template matching process to the first BV candidate based on a first template matching cost of the first BV candidate between a current template and a reference template of the current video block, [See Zhang, ¶ 0099-00106 discloses a cost metric for a target motion candidate for the target video block is determined at least based on a matching cost of the target motion candidate. The matching cost may be generated by the template matching process as described in the above section 2.12 and/or the bilateral matching process. For example, a template or bilateral matching cost (denoted as C) may be calculated to be a cost metric (denoted as f (C) ) before compared with another template or bilateral matching cost.]
the first template matching process being different from a second template matching process for a second BV candidate, a second reference block associated with the second BV candidate being reconstructed inside the current picture, wherein the first template matching cost of the first BV candidate is modified based on a factor; and [See Zhang, ¶ 0099-00106 discloses the matching cost of a target motion candidate for a current video block may be adaptively converted to a cost metric before comparing with a further matching cost for the current video block. In this way, a motion candidate list comprising the target motion candidate can be adaptively reordered based on the cost metrics. Further, that the cost metric may be determined based on the matching cost and at least a cost factor for the target motion candidate. For example, the cost metric f (C) may be calculated as a product w*C of the cost C and the cost factor w, wherein w is denoted as the cost factor. For another example, the cost metric f (C) may be calculated by adding a deviation (denoted as u) to the product w*C of the cost C and the cost factor w, that is F (C) is calculated as w*C+u. For a further example, the cost metric f (C) may be calculated by shifting the product w*C of the cost C and the cost factor w by an offset (denoted as s) , that is, F (C) is equal to Shift ( (w*C) , s).]
performing the conversion based on the first template matching process. [See Zhang, ¶ 0099-00106, Fig. 40 discloses that matching costs for motion candidates in different groups may be converted into cost metrics by using different cost factors.]
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Zhang discloses:
wherein the factor is the same for a plurality of coding modes, or wherein for a plurality of overlapping ratios of a plurality of unreconstructed regions of the reference block to an area of the current video block, the factor is the same. [See Zhang, ¶ 0099-00106 discloses that the cost factor of the target motion candidate in a group or at a position depends on a coding mode of neighbor coded blocks.]
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Zhang discloses:
wherein the factor for a first slice type is different from a further factor for a second slice type. [See Zhang, ¶ 0099-00106, 0120-0121 discloses that information on whether to and/or how to apply the cost factor method is included in the bitstream – further, that the information may depend on coded information including a slice type.]
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Zhang discloses:
wherein the factor of the first BV candidate in an I slice is different from a further factor of a third BV candidate in a non-I slice, the third BV candidate being associated with a reference block comprising reconstructed samples and unreconstructed samples in the current picture, wherein the non-I slice comprises a B slice. [See Zhang, ¶ 0072, 0099-00106, 0120-0121 discloses that information on whether to and/or how to apply the cost factor method is included in the bitstream – further, that the information may depend on coded information including a slice type.]
Regarding claim 5, Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Zhang discloses:
wherein the factor is the same for a plurality of slice types. [See Zhang, ¶ 0072, 0099-00106, 00107-00108, 0120-0121 discloses that information on whether to and/or how to apply the cost factor method is included in the bitstream – further, that the information may depend on coded information including a slice type. Further, that the cost factor for the target motion candidate may depend on the number of neighbor affine coded blocks. For another example, the third value may be equal to 2, the fourth value may be equal to 5, the fifth value may be equal to 8, and the sixth value may be equal to 10, and a cost factor of affine merge candidates may be equal to 10 – hence, a sixth value and the cost factor of affine merge candidates are both equal to 10 (the factor is the same.]
Regarding claim 6, Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Zhang discloses:
wherein the factor is the same for a plurality of coding processes, or wherein the factor is different for a plurality of coding processes. [See Zhang, ¶ 0099-00106 discloses that the cost factor of the target motion candidate in a group or at a position depends on a coding mode of neighbor coded blocks.]
Regarding claim 7, Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Zhang discloses:
wherein at least two factors for at least two BV candidates in at least two coding processes are different. [See Zhang, ¶ 0072, 0099-00106, 00107-00108, 0120-0121 discloses that information on whether to and/or how to apply the cost factor method is included in the bitstream – further, that the information may depend on coded information including a slice type. Further, that the cost factor for the target motion candidate may depend on the number of neighbor affine coded blocks. For another example, the third value may be equal to 2, the fourth value may be equal to 5, the fifth value may be equal to 8, and the sixth value may be equal to 10, and a cost factor of affine merge candidates may be equal to 10 – hence, a sixth value and the cost factor of affine merge candidates are both equal to 10 (the factor is the same.]
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Zhang discloses:
wherein the factor is different for a plurality of block vector prediction processes. [See Zhang, ¶ 0099-00106 discloses that the cost factor of the target motion candidate in a group or at a position depends on a coding mode of neighbor coded blocks.]
Regarding claim 11, Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Zhang discloses:
wherein the factor is the same for a plurality of coding configurations, or wherein the factor is the same for a plurality of sequence resolutions. , [See Zhang, ¶ 0072, 0099-00106, 00107-00108, 0120-0121 discloses that information on whether to and/or how to apply the cost factor method is included in the bitstream – further, that the information may depend on coded information including a slice type. Further, that the cost factor for the target motion candidate may depend on the number of neighbor affine coded blocks. For another example, the third value may be equal to 2, the fourth value may be equal to 5, the fifth value may be equal to 8, and the sixth value may be equal to 10, and a cost factor of affine merge candidates may be equal to 10 – hence, a sixth value and the cost factor of affine merge candidates are both equal to 10 (the factor is the same.]
Regarding claim 12, Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Zhang discloses:
wherein the current video block or a video unit comprises one of: a color component, a sub-picture, a slice, a tile, a coding tree unit (CTU), a CTU row, groups of CTUs, a coding unit (CU), a prediction unit (PU), a transform unit (TU), a coding tree block (CTB), a coding block (CB), a prediction block (PB), a transform block (TB), a block, a sub-block of a block, a sub-region within a block, or a region that contains more than one sample or pixel. [See Zhang, ¶ 0097-0098 discloses that the term “block” may represent a coding block, a coding unit, a prediction unit, a transform unit, a prediction block, and a transform block.]
Regarding claim 13, Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Zhang discloses:
wherein information regarding whether to and/or how to apply the method is included in the bitstream, wherein the information is indicated at one of: a sequence level, a group of pictures level, a picture level, a slice level or a tile group level, or wherein the information is indicated in a sequence header, a picture header, a sequence parameter set (SPS), a Video Parameter Set (VPS), a decoded parameter set (DPS), Decoding Capability Information (DCI), a Picture Parameter Set (PPS), an Adaptation Parameter Set (APS), a slice header or a tile group header, or wherein the information is indicated in a region containing more than one sample or pixel, wherein the region comprising one of: a prediction block (PB), a transform block (TB), a coding block (CB), a prediction unit (PU), a transform unit (TU), a coding unit (CU), a virtual pipeline data unit (VPDU), a coding tree unit (CTU), a CTU row, a slice, a tile, a subpicture. [See Zhang, pg. 71 lines 1-4 discloses whether to and/or how to apply the disclosed methods above may be signaled at sequence level/group of pictures level/picture level/slice level/tile group level, such as in sequence header/picture header/SPS/VPS/DPS/DCI/PPS/APS/slice header/tile group header.]
Regarding claim 14, Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Zhang discloses:
wherein information regarding whether to and/or how to apply the method is based on coded information, wherein the coded information comprises at least one of: a coding mode, a block size, a colour format, a single or dual tree partitioning, a colour component, a slice type, or a picture type. [See Zhang, ¶ 0072, 0099-00106, 00107-00108, 0120-0121 discloses that information on whether to and/or how to apply the cost factor method is included in the bitstream – further, that the information may depend on coded information including a slice type.]
Regarding claim 15, Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Zhang discloses:
wherein a block vector prediction of the current video block is in at least one of: a regular intra block copy (IBC) advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) mode, [See Zhang, ¶ 0097 discloses that the embodiments of the present disclosure are related to merge candidate list construcion process for inter coded blocks (e.g., translational motion) , affine coded blocks, TM coded blocks, or IBC coded blocks; or other motion candidate list construction process (e.g., normal AMVP list; affine AMVP list; IBC AMVP list or HMVP table).] a regular IBC merge mode, an IBC template matching (IBC-TM) AMVP mode, an IBC-TM merge mode, an IBC merge mode with block vector differences (IBC-MBVD) mode, a reconstructed-reordered IBC (RR-IBC) AMVP mode, an RR-IBC merge mode, an intra template matching prediction (TMP) mode, a combined intra block copy and intra prediction (IBC-CIIP) mode, an IBC with geometry partitioning mode (IBC-GPM) mode, an IBC with local illumination compensation (IMC-LIC) mode, or a direct block vector (DBV) mode.
Regarding claim 16, Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Zhang discloses:
wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream. [See Zhang, ¶ 00122 discloses that the conversion includes encoding the target video block into the bitstream.]
Regarding claim 17, Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Zhang discloses:
wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream. [See Zhang, ¶ 00123 discloses that the conversion includes decoding the target video block from the bitstream.]
Regarding claim 18, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 in the form of “an apparatus” rather than “a method” and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Further, claim 18 recites the following limitations which are not explicitly found from claim 1, but are addressed as follows:
Zhang discloses:
An apparatus for video processing comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to: [See Zhang, ¶ 0006 discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that stores instructions causing a processor to perform a method.]
Regarding claim 19, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 in the form of “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform acts comprising:” rather than “a method” and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Further, claim 18 recites the following limitations which are not explicitly found from claim 1, but are addressed as follows:
Zhang discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform acts comprising: [See Zhang, ¶ 0006 discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that stores instructions causing a processor to perform a method.]
Regarding claim 20, Zhang discloses:
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, wherein the method comprises: [See Zhang, ¶ 0006 discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that stores instructions causing a processor to perform a method.]
Examiner’s Note:
A bit stream generated by a method, the method comprising… is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream 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 storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. 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 storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 20 merely serves as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. 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 Zhang which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (Zhang, paragraph 0006).
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 (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 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) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2022262818 A1) (hereinafter Zhang) in view of Cao et al. (US 20250260836 A1) (hereinafter Cao).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 7.
Zhang does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein the at least two coding processes comprise at least two of: a block vector prediction, a block vector difference (BVD) prediction, or a BVD sign prediction, and/or wherein the block vector prediction comprises at least one of: an intra block copy (IBC) merge prediction, or an IBC advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) prediction.
However, Cao discloses:
wherein the at least two coding processes comprise at least two of: a block vector prediction, a block vector difference (BVD) prediction, or a BVD sign prediction, and/or wherein the block vector prediction comprises at least one of: an intra block copy (IBC) merge prediction, or an IBC advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) prediction. [See Cao, ¶ 0021, 0033, 0049, 0081, 0086, 0108-0110, 0112 discloses employing a block vector difference (BVD) prediction and a BVD binarization technique which depends on the combination of sign for horizontal and vertical BVD components (and hence a BVD sign prediction).]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Zhang to add the teachings of Cao in order to reduce coding complexity by using BVD as a coding tool.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Zhang discloses:
wherein at least one factor of at least one BV candidate in at least one first coding process is smaller than at least one factor of at least one BV candidate in at least one second coding process, [See Zhang, ¶ 0072, 0099-00106, 00107-00108, 0120-0121 discloses that information on whether to and/or how to apply the cost factor method is included in the bitstream – further, that the information may depend on coded information including a slice type. Further, that the cost factor for the target motion candidate may depend on the number of neighbor affine coded blocks. For another example, the third value may be equal to 2, the fourth value may be equal to 5, the fifth value may be equal to 8, and the sixth value may be equal to 10, and a cost factor of affine merge candidates may be equal to 10 – hence, a sixth value and the cost factor of affine merge candidates are both equal to 10 (the factor is the same.]
Cao discloses:
the at least one first coding process comprising at least one of: a block vector difference (BVD) prediction or a BVD sign prediction, the at least one second coding process comprising a block vector prediction. [See Cao, ¶ 0021, 0033, 0049, 0081, 0086, 0108-0110, 0112 discloses employing a block vector difference (BVD) prediction and a BVD binarization technique which depends on the combination of sign for horizontal and vertical BVD components (and hence a BVD sign prediction).]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK E DEMOSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-8799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-4 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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 5712727384. 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.
/PATRICK E DEMOSKY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights