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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/29/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rufitskiy et al. (US 20240179302 A1).
Regarding claim 20. Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (CRM) storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for video processing. 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 Rufitskiy which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (0040 and 0053; Figures 1 and 2).
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 1-2, 7, and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rufitskiy et al. (US 20240179302 A1) in view of Ruiz Coll et al (US 20230095946 A1).
Regarding claim 1. Rufitskiy discloses a method for video processing (abstract), comprising:
applying at least one template matching process to the at least one BV candidate based on at least one template matching cost of the at least one BV candidate, the at least one template matching cost being modified based on at least one factor, the at least one factor being associated with at least one coding process (0204; Figure 20); and
performing the conversion based on the at least one template matching process (0204-0205, 0216 and 0294-0296; Figures 22-24).
Rufitskiy failed to exclusively disclose determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, at least one block vector (BV) candidate of the current video block, the at least one BV candidate being associated with at least one reference block of the current video block, the at least one reference block comprising at least one reconstructed sample in a current picture and at least one unreconstructed sample in the current picture.
However, Ruiz Coll shows a method for video processing (Ruiz: Figure 1), comprising:
determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video (0037; wherein the encoder is the conversion), at least one block vector (BV) candidate of the current video block (0143), the at least one BV candidate being associated with at least one reference block of the current video block (0080-0081 and 0183; Figure 9), the at least one reference block comprising at least one reconstructed sample in a current picture and at least one unreconstructed sample in the current picture (0026, 0148 and 0165);
It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rufitskiy to incorporate block vector (BV) candidates associated at least one reference block that comprising at least one reconstructed and at least one unreconstructed sample in the current picture as shown by Ruiz Coll in order to reduce computation complexity, improve coding efficiency and yield other predictive result.
Regarding claim 2. Ruiz Coll further shows the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one factor of the at least one BV candidate in the at least one coding process is a first value, and a further factor of at least one BV candidate in at least one further coding process is a second value larger than the first value (0149 or 0190). The motivation used on the rejection of claim 1 to combine the Ruiz Coll prior art into the Rufitskiy prior art still applies to rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 7. Ruiz Coll further shows the method of claim 1, wherein a template matching cost of the at least one BV candidate between a current template and at least one reference template is not modified (0140). The motivation used on the rejection of claim 1 to combine the Ruiz Coll prior art into the Rufitskiy prior art still applies to the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 9. Ruiz Coll further shows the method of claim 1, 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 (0039 and 0075). The motivation used on the rejection of claim 1 to combine the Ruiz Coll prior art into the Rufitskiy prior art still applies to the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10. Rufitskiy discloses the method of claim 1, wherein information regarding whether to and/or how to apply the method is included in the bitstream (0040-0041).
Regarding claim 11. Rufitskiy discloses the method of claim 10, 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 (0043).
Regarding claim 12. Rufitskiy discloses the method of claim 10, 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 (0043 or 0124).
Regarding claim 13. Rufitskiy discloses the method of claim 10, 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 (0079, 0084, 0087, 0158, 0160 or 0236).
Regarding claim 14. Rufitskiy discloses the method of claim 1, wherein information regarding whether to and/or how to apply the method is is based on coded information (0040-0041).
Regarding claim 15. Rufitskiy discloses the method of claim 14, 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 (0075, 0203, 0260; Figure 7).
Regarding claim 16. Rufitskiy discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream (0040-0041).
Regarding claim 17. Rufitskiy discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream (0065 or 0067).
Regarding claim 18. The apparatus for video processing comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions as claim on 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 obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 19. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium 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 obviousness as used above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 and 8 are 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. CHEN et al. (US 20230034458 A1)
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