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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 07 October 2025 for application number 19/473,391. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, Claims.
Claims 24-38 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on the following dates are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are being considered by the Examiner: 10/7/25; 4/24/26.
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 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) 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (NPL titled “Non-EE2: Copy-Padding for IBC”).
Regarding claim 24, Zhang (pages 1-3) discloses a device for video decoding, the device comprising: a processor configured to: obtain, based on block-vector-based intra prediction (“IBC mode”), a prediction block of a current block in a current picture; determine that the prediction block comprises previously decoded samples and non- decoded samples (“unreconstructed sample”); based on determining that the prediction block comprises the previously decoded samples and the non-decoded samples, pad the non-decoded samples using neighboring samples based on a statistical calculation associated with the neighboring samples (fig. 1, where unreconstructed samples (shaded) in the reference block are padded by copying their prediction samples); and decode the current block based on at least the padded samples (implicit in “IBC mode”).
Regarding claim 28, see teachings of claim 24, Zhang further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: determine that the prediction block further comprises partially decoded samples; partially decoded samples using neighboring samples (pages 1-3).
Regarding claim 29, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 24.
Regarding claim 33, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 28.
Regarding claim 34, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 24. The decoding process is well known to be the reverse process of the encoding process.
Regarding claim 38, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 28.
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 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.
Claim(s) 25, 30, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (NPL titled “Non-EE2: Copy-Padding for IBC”) in view of Li et al. (US 2019/0141318).
Regarding claim 25, see teachings of claim 24, Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the statistical calculation associated with the neighboring samples is a weighted average of the neighboring samples.
In the same field of endeavor, Li discloses wherein the statistical calculation associated with the neighboring samples is a weighted average of the neighboring samples (pars. 283, 284, 350; figs. 23, 28).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with motivation to modify Zhang to include the teachings of Li in order to achieve padding (Li, par. 283).
Regarding claim 30, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 25.
Regarding claim 35, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 25.
Claim(s) 26, 31, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (NPL titled “Non-EE2: Copy-Padding for IBC”) in view of Xu et al. (US 2016/0241868).
Regarding claim 26, see teachings of claim 24, Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the statistical calculation associated with the neighboring samples is a median calculation of the neighboring samples.
In the same field of endeavor, Xu discloses wherein the statistical calculation associated with the neighboring samples is a median calculation of the neighboring samples (pars. 129, 164).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with motivation to modify Zhang to include the teachings of Xu in order to replace the unreconstructed sample values with default or otherwise determined values (Xu, par. 129).
Regarding claim 31, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 26.
Regarding claim 36, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 26.
Claim(s) 27, 32, 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (NPL titled “Non-EE2: Copy-Padding for IBC”) in view of Zhao et al. (US 2023/0061216).
Regarding claim 27, see teachings of claim 24, Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the non-decoded samples are padded by applying a DC or planar prediction process using the neighboring samples.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhao discloses wherein the non-decoded samples are padded by applying a DC or planar prediction process using the neighboring samples (par. 208).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with motivation to modify Zhang to include the teachings of Zhao in order to implement the padding process (Zhao, par. 208).
Regarding claim 32, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 27.
Regarding claim 37, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 27.
Prior Art not relied upon: Please refer to the references listed in attached PTO-892, which are not relied upon for the claim rejections, since these references are pertinent to the disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-5262. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri, 6AM - 2PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on 571-272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NGUYEN T TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights