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(s) (IDS) submitted on 09/29/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are 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)(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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 20230075788) (hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 11, this claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by a method. Significantly, the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium is not implementing any method; no instructions/steps are being executed. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data output from and/or generated by a method. In other words, these claims are directed to a mere machine-readable medium storing data content (a bitstream generated by an method).
Applicant seeks to patent the storage of a bitstream in the abstract. In other words, the claim seeks to patent the content of the information (bitstream with video content) and not the process itself. Moreover, this stored bitstream does not impose any definitive physical organization on the data as there is no functional relationship between the bitstream and the storage medium. In conclusion, this claim is directed to mere data content (bitstream generated by the recited method) stored as a bitstream on a computer-readable storage medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, this claim is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. Therefore, this claim is anticipated by Li paragraph(s) 7 and 224, which discloses a computer readable medium storing a coded bitstream.
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 taught 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20230075788) (hereinafter Li) in view of Jhu et al. (US 20240283924) (hereinafter Jhu).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches An image decoding method comprising:
generating an inter prediction block of a current block (see Li paragraph 18 and 66 regarding inter prediction block);
A method for decoding an intra prediction image of the current block, deriving an initial block vector of a current block; deriving a search range based on the initial block vector; and deriving a refined block vector based on the search range (see Li figure 13, paragraphs 22, 97, 113-114, 163-165, and 173 regarding decoding intra prediction image by deriving initial block vector in IBC mode, deriving a search range that may be square/diamond or cross, and refining a block vector as a candidate block vector to minimize a distortion value, where the decision to refine a vector may be combined with the block being in IBC mode- in combination with Jhu below the minimization of distortion may be of a first and second signal),
However, Li does not explicitly teach a difference as needed for the limitations of claim 1.
Jhu, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the refined block vector is derived based on a difference between a first prediction signal generated from a candidate block vector within the search range and a second prediction signal generated based on an intra prediction mode of the current block (see Jhu figure 13, paragraphs 5-8, 48-51, 54, 71, 117, and 225-228 regarding determining costs between candidate block vectors in a vector search which creates differences between different candidate block vectors including a prediction signal generated from an intra prediction mode and TIMD derivation selection of a candidate based on a template- in combination with Li, the refined block vector may be derived by determining costs between candidate block vectors in a vector search which creates differences between different candidate block vectors including a prediction signal generated from an intra prediction mode and TIMD derivation selection of a candidate based on a template).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teaching of Li to include the teaching of Jhu so that in combination with Li, the refined block vector may be derived by determining costs between candidate block vectors in a vector search which creates differences between different candidate block vectors including a prediction signal generated from an intra prediction mode and TIMD derivation selection of a candidate based on a template.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to incorporate candidate selection techniques that select the most efficient candidates for coding (see Jhu figure 13, paragraphs 5-8, 48-51, 54, 71, 117, and 225-228).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Li and Jhu teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Li and Jhu teaches wherein the intra prediction mode is derived by a template-based intra mode derivation (TIMD) method (see Jhu figure 13, paragraphs 5-8, 48-51, 54, 71, 117, and 225-228 regarding determining costs between candidate block vectors in a vector search which creates differences between different candidate block vectors including a prediction signal generated from an intra prediction mode and TIMD derivation selection of a candidate based on a template- in combination with Li, the refined block vector may be derived by determining costs between candidate block vectors in a vector search which creates differences between different candidate block vectors including a prediction signal generated from an intra prediction mode and TIMD derivation selection of a candidate based on a template).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to incorporate candidate selection techniques that select the most efficient candidates for coding (see Jhu figure 13, paragraphs 5-8, 48-51, 54, 71, 117, and 225-228).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Li and Jhu teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Li and Jhu teaches wherein the TIMD method is performed by selecting any one of candidate modes in an intra prediction candidate list of the current block based on a template of the current block (see Jhu figure 13, paragraphs 5-8, 48-51, 54, 71, 117, and 225-228 regarding determining costs between candidate block vectors in a vector search which creates differences between different candidate block vectors including a prediction signal generated from an intra prediction mode and TIMD derivation selection of a candidate based on a template- in combination with Li, the refined block vector may be derived by determining costs between candidate block vectors in a vector search which creates differences between different candidate block vectors including a prediction signal generated from an intra prediction mode and TIMD derivation selection of a candidate based on a template).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to incorporate candidate selection techniques that select the most efficient candidates for coding (see Jhu figure 13, paragraphs 5-8, 48-51, 54, 71, 117, and 225-228).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Li and Jhu teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Li and Jhu teaches wherein the refined block vector is a candidate block vector that minimizes a distortion value of the first prediction signal and the second prediction signal (see Li figure 13, paragraphs 22, 97, 113-114, 163-165, and 173 regarding decoding intra prediction image by deriving initial block vector in IBC mode, deriving a search range that may be square/diamond or cross, and refining a block vector as a candidate block vector to minimize a distortion value, where the decision to refine a vector may be combined with the block being in IBC mode- in combination with Jhu below the minimization of distortion may be of a first and second signal).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Li and Jhu teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Li and Jhu teaches wherein the search range is an area with a predefined shape (see Li figure 13, paragraphs 22, 97, 113-114, 163-165, and 173 regarding decoding intra prediction image by deriving initial block vector in IBC mode, deriving a search range that may be square/diamond or cross, and refining a block vector as a candidate block vector to minimize a distortion value, where the decision to refine a vector may be combined with the block being in IBC mode- in combination with Jhu below the minimization of distortion may be of a first and second signal).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Li and Jhu teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 5, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Li and Jhu teaches wherein the predefined shape is a square shape (see Li figure 13, paragraphs 22, 97, 113-114, 163-165, and 173 regarding decoding intra prediction image by deriving initial block vector in IBC mode, deriving a search range that may be square/diamond or cross, and refining a block vector as a candidate block vector to minimize a distortion value, where the decision to refine a vector may be combined with the block being in IBC mode- in combination with Jhu below the minimization of distortion may be of a first and second signal).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Li and Jhu teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 5, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Li and Jhu teaches wherein the predefined shape is a cross shape (see Li figure 13, paragraphs 22, 97, 113-114, 163-165, and 173 regarding decoding intra prediction image by deriving initial block vector in IBC mode, deriving a search range that may be square/diamond or cross, and refining a block vector as a candidate block vector to minimize a distortion value, where the decision to refine a vector may be combined with the block being in IBC mode- in combination with Jhu below the minimization of distortion may be of a first and second signal).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Li and Jhu teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Li and Jhu teaches further comprising determining whether to refine a block vector of the current block based on at least one of whether the current block is in an intra block copy (IBC) merge mode, the number of samples of the current block or a size of the current block (see Li figure 13, paragraphs 22, 97, 113-114, 163-165, and 173 regarding decoding intra prediction image by deriving initial block vector in IBC mode, deriving a search range that may be square/diamond or cross, and refining a block vector as a candidate block vector to minimize a distortion value, where the decision to refine a vector may be combined with the block being in IBC mode- in combination with Jhu below the minimization of distortion may be of a first and second signal).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Li and Jhu teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Li and Jhu teaches wherein the initial block vector is a block vector in an IBC merge mode (see Li figure 13, paragraphs 22, 97, 113-114, 163-165, and 173 regarding decoding intra prediction image by deriving initial block vector in IBC mode, deriving a search range that may be square/diamond or cross, and refining a block vector as a candidate block vector to minimize a distortion value, where the decision to refine a vector may be combined with the block being in IBC mode- in combination with Jhu below the minimization of distortion may be of a first and second signal).
Independent claim(s) 10 is/are analogous in scope to claim(s) 1, albeit in the inverse encoding form, and is/are rejected according to the same reasoning.
Independent claim(s) 11 is/are analogous in scope to claim(s) 1, albeit regarding a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a bitstream as taught by Li paragraphs 7 and 224, and is/are rejected according to the same reasoning.
Independent claim(s) 12 is/are analogous in scope to claim(s) 1, albeit in a bitstream transmission method, and is/are rejected according to the same reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew D Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-3527. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30am - 5:30pm 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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571) 272-7383. 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 DAVID KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights