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 10/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
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 § 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20240015333 A1, hereinafter “Chen”) in view of XU et al. (US 20220086447 A1, hereinafter “Xu”).
Regarding claim 1. Chen discloses a method of video processing (abstract), comprising:
deriving, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video (0039, 0066 and 0076; Figure 12), a prediction or reconstruction of the video unit by combining an intra template matching prediction (TMP) prediction signal and another prediction signal that is obtained using a coding tool, wherein the video unit is applied with a fusion of intra TMP mode and the coding tool, one or more Intra TMP candidates are used for the fusion of the Intra TMP prediction signal and the other predictions signal (0037, 0218, 0264 and 0268; Figure 12; “[0218] … motion estimation unit 222 includes a template matching unit 228 may implement template-matching coding tools, such as TM-AMVP, GPM split mode reordering, candidate reordering for regular MMVD and affine MMVD, MVD sign prediction, reference picture reordering, template-matching merge mode, template-matching GPM, template-matching CIIP, adaptive re-ordering of merge candidates, TMVP and non-adjacent merge candidate type reordering, TM-OBMC, IntraTMP, IBC-TM-AMVP, and IBC-TM-AMVP. ...”).
Chen failed to disclose performing the conversion based on the prediction or reconstruction of the video unit.
Xu, however, in the same field of endeavor, shows performing the conversion based on the prediction or reconstruction of the video unit (0534; Figure 36; “[0534] FIG. 36 is a flowchart for an example method 3600 of video processing. The method 3600 includes, at 3602, generating, for a conversion between a block of a video and a bitstream representation of the block, prediction for the block with a combined method which uses intra block copy (IBC) prediction and intra prediction in combination; and at 3604, performing the conversion based on the prediction.”).
Therefore, 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 system of Xu in the invention of Chen in order to modify the system of Chen provides various techniques that can be used by a decoder of image or video bitstreams to improve the quality of decompressed or decoded digital video or images (please see, Xu: 0049).
Regarding claim 2. Chen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein one or more specific Intra TMP candidates are used for the fusion (0218, 0264 and 0268; Figure 12), and/or
wherein a plurality of interpolation filters is used (0222; Figure 12; “… if the motion vector has fractional sample precision, motion compensation unit 224 may interpolate values for the prediction block according to one or more interpolation filters. …”), and/or
wherein an indication of the fusion of intra TPM mode and the coding tool is signaled after a coding tool, or
wherein an indication of the fusion of intra TPM mode and the coding tool is signaled before a coding tool.
Regarding claim 3. Chen discloses the method of claim 2, wherein first M1 IntraTMP candidates are used, wherein M1 is an integer number; and/or
wherein last M2 IntraTMP candidates are used, wherein M2 is an integer number (0096; Figure 4; “[0096] In TM-AMVP mode, an MVP candidate is determined based on template matching error to select the MVP candidate which reaches the minimum difference between the current block template and the reference block template 412, and then TM is performed only for this particular MVP candidate for MV refinement. TM refines this MVP candidate, starting from full-pel MVD precision (or 4-pel for 4-pel AMVR mode) within a [−8, +8]-pel search range by using iterative diamond search. The AMVP candidate may be further refined by using cross search with full-pel MVD precision (or 4-pel for 4-pel AMVR mode), followed sequentially by half-pel and quarter-pel ones depending on AMVR mode as specified in the table below. This search process ensures that the MVP candidate keeps the same MV precision as indicated by the AMVR mode after TM process. In the search process, if the difference between the previous minimum cost and the current minimum cost in the iteration is less than a threshold that is equal to the area of the block, the search process terminates.”), and/or
wherein coefficients of interpolation filter are derived using coding information.
Regarding claim 4. Chen discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the coding tool refers to at least one of: an index of Intra TMP candidate, an Intra TMP fusion with Intra TMP candidate, an Intra TMP with linear model, or an Intra TMP with half-pel precision, and/or
wherein interpolation filters with different coefficients are used (Figure 10), and/or
wherein interpolation filters with different taps are used (Figure 10), and/or
wherein one Intra TMP candidate is derived using one interpolation filter (Figure 10), or
wherein one Intra TMP candidate is derived using more than one interpolation filter (Figure 10).
Regarding claim 5. Chen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the number of Intra TMP candidates used for the fusion with the other prediction signal is same as other Intra TMP approaches, and/or wherein one or more Intra TMP prediction signals and at least one intra prediction signal are fused, and/or wherein an indication of Intra TMP with sub-pel precision is signaled before an indication of Intra TMP candidate index (0097; Figure 4; “[0097] In TM-MRG merge mode, similar search method is applied to the merge candidate indicated by the merge index. As Table 1 shows, TM may perform all the way down to ⅛-pel MVD precision or skipping those beyond half-pel MVD precision, depending on whether the alternative interpolation filter (that is used when AMVR is of half-pel mode) is used according to merged motion information. Besides, when TM mode is enabled, template matching may work as an independent process or an extra MV refinement process between block-based and subblock-based bilateral matching (BM) methods, depending on whether BM can be enabled or not according to its enabling condition check.”).
Regarding claim 6. Chen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more Intra TMP candidates are sub-pel precision (0095-0098; Figure 4; “[0096] In TM-AMVP mode, an MVP candidate is determined based on template matching error to select the MVP candidate which reaches the minimum difference between the current block template and the reference block template 412, and then TM is performed only for this particular MVP candidate for MV refinement. TM refines this MVP candidate, starting from full-pel MVD precision (or 4-pel for 4-pel AMVR mode) within a [−8, +8]-pel search range by using iterative diamond search. The AMVP candidate may be further refined by using cross search with full-pel MVD precision (or 4-pel for 4-pel AMVR mode), followed sequentially by half-pel and quarter-pel ones depending on AMVR mode as specified in the table below. This search process ensures that the MVP candidate keeps the same MV precision as indicated by the AMVR mode after TM process. In the search process, if the difference between the previous minimum cost and the current minimum cost in the iteration is less than a threshold that is equal to the area of the block, the search process terminates.”).
Regarding claim 7. Chen discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the sub-pel precision comprises 1/(2N)-pel, wherein N is an integer larger than 1, and/or wherein a plurality of one sub-pel precisions is used (0208 and 0227; Figure 12).
Regarding claim 8. Chen discloses the method of claim 7, wherein N is equal to 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, or 5 (0208; Figure 12; “[0208] In another example, when a high-level flag of IBC-TM-MRG is disabled in the bitstream, the pruning threshold used to determine whether the same motion vector component (that is either x or y direction) of two motion vectors are similar is set equal to N (where N is a positive integer). When the absolute difference a MV component between two MVs is less than N, it means the MV motion component of two MVs are similar. If each MV component of the two MVs are similar, video encoder 200 and video decoder 300 may prune one of the MVs in the construction process of IBC merge candidate list. Typically, N is set equal to either 1 (which means two MVs are regarded as similar when they are exactly identical to each other) or 0 (which means similarity-based pruning is disabled).”).
Regarding claim 9. Chen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more Intra TMP candidates are divided into different groups, and which group is used for the fusion is signaled (Figure 10), and/or
wherein the number of Intra TMP candidates used for the fusion with the other prediction signal is less than other Intra TMP approaches (Figure 10), and/or
wherein a modified template is used to derive the one or more Intra TMP candidates (Figure 10), and/or
wherein if a plurality of Intra TMP candidates is used to obtain a final prediction signal, a sub-pel precision is not used to obtain the plurality of Intra TMP candidate (Figure 10), and/or
wherein coding information of a sample is used for the fusion (Figure 10).
Regarding claim 10. Chen discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the one or more Intra TMP candidates are divided according to which template is used to derive Intra TMP candidates, and/or
wherein the other Intra TMP approaches comprise multiple candidates for Intra TMP or Intra TMP with linear model (0218, 0229 and 0246; Figure 12), and/or
wherein the modified template is used in other Intra TMP approaches (0106, 0068, 0074, and 0082-0090; Figures 5 and 2-3, 12), and/or
wherein weighting parameters for the fusion are derived using coding information (0106, 0068, 0074, and 0082-0090; Figures 5 and 2-3, 12), and/or
wherein the coding information comprises at least one of: neighbouring samples, gradient information, or position information (0106, 0068, 0074, and 0082-0090; Figures 5 and 2-3, 12), and/or
wherein the coding information is from at least one of: Intra TMP candidate or intra prediction signal (0106, 0068, 0074, and 0082-0090; Figures 5 and 2-3, 12).
Regarding claim 11. Chen discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the other Intra TMP approaches comprise at least one of: multiple candidates for Intra TMP, Intra TMP with half-pel precision, or Intra TMP with linear model (0096-0097; Figure 4), and/or
wherein the coding information comprises neighbouring template (0106, 0068, 0074, and 0082-0090; Figures 5 and 2-3, 12), and/or
wherein gradient information is calculated using Intra TMP prediction or using intra prediction signal (0106, 0068, 0074, and 0082-0090; Figures 5 and 2-3, 12), and/or
wherein one or more neighbouring Intra TMP prediction samples are used (0106, 0068, 0074, and 0082-0090; Figures 5 and 2-3, 12), and/or
wherein one or more neighbouring intra prediction samples are used (0106, 0068, 0074, and 0082-0090; Figures 5 and 2-3, 12).
Regarding claim 12. Chen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein one or more sub-pel directions are used to obtain a sub-pel Intra TMP candidate (0109; Figure 6).
Regarding claim 12. Chen discloses the method of claim 12, wherein a plurality of sub-pel directions is used together to obtain the sup-pel Intra TMP candidate (0095; Figure 4), and/or
wherein left and right directions are used (0095; Figure 4), and/or
wherein top and bottom directions are used (0095; Figure 4), and/or
wherein left, right, top, and bottom directions are used (0095; Figure 4).
Regarding claim 14. Chen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a plurality of sets of weighting parameters is constructed, and the plurality of sets of weighting parameters is signaled (0103, 0125 and 0129; Figures 4 and 9).
Regarding claims 15-17. Claims 15-17 have similar limitations as to those limitations 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 discussed above.
Regarding claim 18. Apparatus 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 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 19. 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.
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 Chen.
Regarding claim 20. Claim 20 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 Chen which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (0249; Figure 13; “[0249] CPB memory 320 may store video data, such as an encoded video bitstream, to be decoded by the components of video decoder 300. The video data stored in CPB memory 320 may be obtained, for example, from computer-readable medium 110 (FIG. 1). CPB memory 320 may include a CPB that stores encoded video data (e.g., syntax elements) from an encoded video bitstream. Also, CPB memory 320 may store video data other than syntax elements of a coded picture, such as temporary data representing outputs from the various units of video decoder 300. DPB 314 generally stores decoded pictures, which video decoder 300 may output and/or use as reference video data when decoding subsequent data or pictures of the encoded video bitstream. CPB memory 320 and DPB 314 may be formed by any of a variety of memory devices, such as DRAM, including SDRAM, MRAM, RRAM, or other types of memory devices. CPB memory 320 and DPB 314 may be provided by the same memory device or separate memory devices. In various examples, CPB memory 320 may be on-chip with other components of video decoder 300, or off-chip relative to those components.”).
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