DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on May 20, 2026. Claims 1, 7, 21, 23-25, 27-29, and 33-41 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments made to claims 1, 7, 24, 25, 27, and 29, and the cancellation of claims 13-14, 22, 26, and 30-32 have been fully considered.
In light of these, the previous rejection with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
The previous rejection with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 is also withdrawn.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments and amendments received May 20, 2026 have been fully considered.
With regard to 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to disclose performing an availability check for temporal candidates based on a multi-tile boundary. This language corresponds to the newly amended language of claims 1, 7, and 27.
As such, these have been considered but they are directed to newly amended language, which is addressed below. See the rejection below for how the cited prior art in view of a newly cited reference reads on the newly amended language as well as the examiner's interpretation of the cited art in view of the presented claim set.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 21, 23-25, 27-29, and 33041 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0245059 (“Terada”) in view of Recommendation, “H.265: High Efficiency Video Coding.” ITU-T, April 2013 (pp. 1-317) (“H.265”) and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,554,133 (“Ye”).
With respect to claim 1, Terada discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including
A decoding method (see Abstract, Title, describing a decoder for preforming a decoding method), comprising:
generating a merge list for a target block in a current picture (see ¶241, describing generating a MV list for the merge mode, i.e., merge list, for a current/target block);
determining first motion information of the target block using the merge list and a merge index (see citations above and ¶242, describing that the MV/merge list and a MV index may be used to determine a specified prediction MV, i.e., first motion information of the target block); and
performing inter prediction for the target block using the first motion information of the target block (see citations above and ¶¶178-180, describing using the prediction MV, i.e., first motion information of the target block, to perform inter prediction for the target block), wherein
…
the merge index indicates a selected merge candidate for the inter prediction for the target block among merge candidates in the merge list (see citations with respect to elements above, describing the use of an MV index, i.e., merge index, indicating a selected merge/MV candidate for inter prediction of the target block among MV/merge candidates in the MV/merge list),
the target block is comprised in a first region (see citations and arguments with respect to elements above, and Figs. 1A, 1B, showing that the target block may be in a first region that includes two or more tiles, e.g., it is in a region of the 4 tiles together or a region of the tiles on top, or a region of the tiles on the right; see also ¶¶112, 277, 323, 344, describing that such blocks may be part of a slice),
the first region is composed of [] first tile[] among the plurality of tiles (see citations with respect to element above, describing that the block may be comprised in a tile, i.e., first tile, among the plurality of tiles),
whether to add second motion information of each of spatial candidate blocks in the current picture to the merge list as a merge candidate is determined (see ¶¶245-246, 271, 301, 303-304, describing determining whether to add second motion information of spatial candidate blocks in the current picture to the merge list as merge candidates),
whether to add third motion information of a temporal candidate block in a reconstrued collocated picture of the current picture to the merge candidate list as a merge candidate is determined based on an availability of the temporal candidate block (see ¶¶183-18245-246, 252, 256-260, 265, describing that the system determines whether to add temporal candidate motion information to the merge/MV list depending on its availability),
the third motion information of the temporal candidate block indicates a bi-directional prediction (see ¶114, 116, 306, describing that these temporal MV candidates may be bi-predictive, i.e., may indicate bi-directional prediction, or that such may be prohibited),
the third motion information of the temporal candidate block is added to the merge list as a merge candidate in a case that the availability of the temporal candidate block is true (see citations and arguments with respect to claim elements above, describing that the motion information of the temporal candidate block may be added only when its availability is true),
the third motion information of the temporal candidate block is not added to the merge list as a merge candidate in a case that the availability of the temporal candidate block is false (see citations and arguments with respect to claim elements above, describing that the motion information of the temporal candidate block may not be added when its availability is false),
the availability of the temporal candidate block is set to false in a case that the temporal candidate block is out of a boundary of a second region (see citations and arguments with respect to claim elements above and Figs. 1A-1B, ¶¶65-67, describing that the temporal candidate block may only be used where it is in the same tile as that of the target block, e.g., Tile 2 of Fig. 1B, even in an image at a different time point (FRAME(t-1)), and not where it is in a different tile as that of the target block, e.g., as shown in Fig. 1A, i.e., the temporal candidate is not available - its availability is set to false, when it is out of boundary of the co-located region/tile, i.e., a second region),
the second region is composed of [] second tile[] in the reconstructed collocated picture (see citations with respect to element above, showing and describing that the second region may be composed of a tile, i.e., second tile, in the reconstructed collocated picture),
the [] second tile[] in the reconstructed collocated picture correspond to the [] first tile[] in the current picture (see citations and arguments with respect to claim elements above, describing that the second tile, e.g., tile 2 FRAME(t-1) of Fig. 1B, in the reconstructed collocated picture corresponds to the first tile, e.g., tile 2 of FRAME(t) of Fig. 1B, in the current picture),
a location of the temporal candidate block is determined based on a location of the target block (see citations and arguments with respect to elements above and Fig. 1B, ¶67, describing that the location of the temporal candidate may be based on a location of the target block – i.e., it must be within the same tile in the previously decoded image),
the temporal candidate block is a reconstructed block comprising a reference pixel in a reconstructed collocated picture of the current picture (see citation above and ¶¶140, 178, 183, showing and describing that the temporal candidate block is a reconstructed reference image at a different time point, in a reconstructed collocated picture of the current picture),
…
As detailed above, Terada constrains temporal candidates to being in a tile in the same location as the tile of the target block in a co-located image. Terada does not teach constraining such candidates to a tile group, i.e., more than one tile. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ye discloses that this same concept may be applied to groups of tiles, i.e.:
the first region is composed of two or more first tiles among the plurality of tiles (see Fig. 2B, 5, 4:41-5:9, 5:34-6:1, showing and describing that the current block may be contained in a first region composed of a subset of tiles, i.e., two or more first tiles among the plurality of tiles, e.g., 202a and 202c of Frame T),
…
the second region is composed of two or more second tiles in the reconstructed collocated picture (see citations above, showing and describing that it was known to constrain a reference block in a reconstructed collocated picture to the same subset of tiles, i.e., second region composed of two or more second tiles),
the two or more second tiles in the reconstructed collocated picture correspond to the [] first tiles in the current picture (see citations and arguments with respect to claim elements above),
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with the benefits of constraining motion to a particular collocated region in a collocated reference image (see Ye 4:40-56, describing that doing so allows for a reduction in coding and Terada ¶66, describing that not implementing such a constraint results in large amounts of processing overhead). Terada limits its temporal candidate’s availability to a single tile region, however, one of ordinary skill in the art could easily see, as evidenced in Ye, that the limitation of temporal motion need not be to a single tile, but was also known to alternatively be to tile groups/subsets. Such a person would have understood that although this would be an increase in coding/processing, it would still be less than the entire image and would have the benefit of allowing for reference to a larger region. Moreover, to such a person, constraining temporal motion and temporal motion candidates to a tile group rather than a single tile would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a mechanism for constraining the availability of temporal motion candidates to a collocated tile group of a collocated reference image rather than a single collocated tile of the collocated reference image in the video coding system of Terada as taught by Ye.
Although Terada details dividing the image into tiles, it does not explicitly disclose the tile structure or the syntax sent to indicate tile size/spacing. Specifically, it does not disclose wherein number information is obtained from a bitstream, the number information indicates the number of a plurality of tiles included in the current picture, a first flag is obtained from the bitstream, a value of the first flag indicates whether sizes of the plurality of tiles are the same or not, widths of the plurality of tiles are the same in a case that the value of the first flag is a first value, heights of the plurality of tiles are the same in a case that the value of the first flag is the first value, additional information is obtained from the bitstream in a case that the value of the first flag is a second value, the additional information is used to define a width of each of the plurality of tiles in units of Coding Tree Units (CTUs), the additional information is used to define a height of each of the plurality of tiles in units of CTUs, an x-coordinate of the reference pixel is a sum of an x-coordinate of the target block and a width of the target block, and a y-coordinate of the reference pixel is a sum of a y-coordinate of the target block and a height of the target block.
However, in the same field of endeavor, H.265 discloses that it was known to send such tile structure details via syntax, namely:
number information is obtained from a bitstream (see Section 7.3.2.3, describing that if tiles are enabled “num_tile_columns_minus1” and “num_tile_rows_minus1” are sent),
the number information indicates a number of a plurality of tiles included in the current picture (see citations above and Section 7.4.3.3, describing that the number information includes the number of tile columns and rows and that these variables specify the number of tile columns and rows the picture is partitioned into, i.e., indicates a number of a plurality of tiles in the current picture),
a first flag is obtained from the bitstream (see Section 7.3.2.3, describing checking a uniform_spacing_flag, i.e., a first flag is obtained from the bitstream),
a value of the first flag indicates whether sizes of the plurality of tiles are the same or not (see citation above and Section 7.4.3.3, describing that the uniform spacing flag indicates whether the tile and row column boundaries are distributed uniformly across the picture, i.e., whether sizes of the plurality of tiles are the same or not),
widths of the plurality of tiles are the same in a case that the value of the first flag is a first value (see citations with respect to elements above, describing that where uniform spacing flag is 1, i.e., a first value, the columns and rows of tiles are spaced uniformly, i.e., the widths and heights of the plurality of tiles are the same),
heights of the plurality of tiles are the same in a case that the value of the first flag is the first value (see citation with respect to element above),
additional information is obtained from the bitstream in a case that the value of the first flag is a second value (see Sections 7.3.2.3 and 7.4.3.3, describing that where uniform_spacing_flag is 0, i.e., a second value, column_width_minus1 and column_height_minus1 are obtained, i.e., additional information is obtained from the bitstream),
the additional information is used to define a width of each of the plurality of tiles in units of Coding Tree Units (CTUs) (see citations above and definitions 3.154-3.157, describing that this additional information defines a width and height of the tile in units of coding tree blocks, i.e., CTUs),
the additional information is used to define a height of each of the plurality of tiles in units of CTUs (see citation with respect to element above),
…
an x-coordinate of the reference pixel is a sum of an x-coordinate of the target block and a width of the target block (see Sections 6.4.2, 8.5.3.2.7, showing and describing that it was known to find a co-located reference block/motion vector, i.e., x and y coordinates of inter prediction reference pixels, by summing the width and height of the block (nPbW, nPbH) respectively with the x and y coordinates of the block (xPb, yPb) ), and
a y-coordinate of the reference pixel is a sum of a y-coordinate of the target block and a height of the target block (see citations and arguments with respect to element above).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with the current video coding standards and of the use of tiles and of the identification of collocated blocks in such standards. Such a person, would thus, have been familiar with the H.265 video coding standard, including its use of tiles and signaling of tile information as well as its definitions of and identification of collocated blocks for inter prediction in a reference image (or reference images for bi-prediction). These standards, as “standards” applicable at the time would have been expected to be operable in any widely used video coding system, and thus the usage of the syntax and definitions in such standards would have been understood to be commercially beneficial at the time of filing. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to include the tile division syntax of the H.265 standard as well as the identification of co-located blocks taught in the H.265 standard in order to obtain this advantage. Moreover, to such a person, doing so would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include mechanisms for signaling tile division information as described in the claim language and for identifying co-located blocks for inter prediction in the video coding system of Terada in view of Ye as taught by H.265.
With respect to claim 7, Terada discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Terada in view of H.265 and Ye discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Terada/H.265/Ye additionally discloses:
An encoding method (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above and Terada Abstract, Title, Fig. 4, and ¶¶65, 91, 93, 274, describing that the methods described may be employed by an encoder or a decoder with identical methods/candidates on each side), comprising:
generating a merge list for a target block in a current picture (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above); and
generating a merge index indicating a selected merge candidate corresponding to first motion information of the target block among merge candidates in the merge list (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above), wherein
number information is added to a bitstream (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
the number information indicates the number of a plurality of tiles included in the current picture (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
a first flag is added to the bitstream (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
a value of the first flag indicates whether sizes of the plurality of tiles are the same or not (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
widths of the plurality of tiles are the same in a case that the value of the first flag is a first value (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
heights of the plurality of tiles are the same in a case that the value of the first flag is the first value (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
additional information is added to the bitstream in a case that the value of the first flag is a second value (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
the additional information indicates a width of each of the plurality of tiles in units of Coding Tree Units (CTUs) (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
the additional information indicates a height of each of the plurality of tiles in units of CTUs (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
the target block is comprised in a first region (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
the first region is composed of two or more first tiles among the plurality of tiles (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
whether to add second motion information of each of spatial candidate blocks in the current picture to the merge list as a merge candidate is determined (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
whether to add third motion information of a temporal candidate block in a reconstructed collocated picture of the current picture to the merge candidate list as a merge candidate is determined based on an availability of the temporal candidate block (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
the third motion information of the temporal candidate block indicates a bi-directional prediction (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
the third motion information of the temporal candidate block is added to the merge list as a merge candidate in a case that the availability of the temporal candidate block is true (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
the third motion information of the temporal candidate block is not added to the merge list as a merge candidate in a case that the availability of the temporal candidate block is false (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
the availability of the temporal candidate block is set to false in a case that the temporal candidate block is out of boundary of a second region (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
the second region is composed of two or more second tiles in the reconstructed collocated picture (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
the two or more second tiles in the reconstructed collocated picture corresponds to the two or more first tiles in the current picture (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
a location of the temporal candidate block is determined based on a location of the target block (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above)
the temporal candidate block is a reconstructed block comprising a reference pixel in a reconstructed collocated picture of the current picture (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
an x-coordinate of the reference pixel is a sum of an x-coordinate of the target block and a width of the target block (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above), and
a y-coordinate of the reference pixel is a sum of a y-coordinate of the target block and a height of the target block (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above.
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 7.
With respect to claim 21, Terada discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Terada in view of H.265 and Ye discloses all the elements of independent claim 7. Terada/H.265/Ye additionally discloses:
wherein the third motion information of the temporal candidate block comprises L0 motion vector and L1 motion vector, and
the L0 motion vector and the L1 motion vector of the third motion information of the temporal candidate block is added to the list in a case that it is determined that the third motion information of the temporal candidate block is added to the merge list as a merge candidate (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 7 above and Terada ¶309, describing that in bi-directional prediction two reference lists, L0 and L1 may be used and H.265, Sections 8.5.3.2.1 which makes clear that in bi-prediction, both the L0 and L1 motion vectors are added to the list as merge candidates).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 21.
With respect to claim 23, Terada discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Terada in view of H.265 and Ye discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Terada/H.265/Ye additionally discloses:
wherein the third motion information of the temporal candidate block comprises L0 motion vector and L1 motion vector, and
the L0 motion vector and the L1 motion vector of the third motion information of the temporal candidate block is added to the list in a case that it is determined that the third motion information of the temporal candidate block is added to the merge list as a merge candidate (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above and corresponding element of claim 21 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claims 1 and 21 also apply to claim 21.
With respect to claim 24, Terada discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Terada in view of H.265 and Ye discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Terada/H.265/Ye additionally discloses:
wherein the temporal candidate block is diagonally adjacent to a bottom-right corner of a corresponding block in the reconstructed collocated picture, and
a corresponding region of the corresponding block in the reconstructed collocated picture corresponds to a target region of the target block in a target picture (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above, describing that the collocated block may be located at (xP+nPbW, yP+nPbH), i.e., diagonally adjacent to a bottom-right corner of the corresponding block in the reconstructed collocated picture, and that this region of this corresponding/collocated block corresponds to same tile/target region in the target picture).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 24.
With respect to claim 25, Terada discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Terada in view of H.265 and Ye discloses all the elements of independent claim 7. Terada/H.265/Ye additionally discloses:
wherein the temporal candidate block is diagonally adjacent to a bottom-right corner of a corresponding block in the reconstructed collocated picture, and
a corresponding region of the corresponding block in the reconstructed collocated picture corresponds to a target region of the target block in a target picture (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 7 above and corresponding element of claim 24 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 25.
With respect to claim 27, claim 27 recites the method of claim 7 including the sending of a bitstream comprising the syntax information. The citations provided with respect to claims 1 and 7 clearly recite the transmission of such a bitstream sent from the encoder to the decoder. Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 7 also applies to claim 27.
With respect to claim 28, claim 28 recites the method of claim 21 including the sending of a bitstream comprising the syntax information. The citations provided with respect to claims 7 and 21 clearly recite the transmission of such a bitstream sent from the encoder to the decoder. Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claims 7 and 21 also applies to claim 28.
With respect to claim 29, claim 29 recites the method of claim 25 including the sending of a bitstream comprising the syntax information. The citations provided with respect to claims 7 and 25 clearly recite the transmission of such a bitstream sent from the encoder to the decoder. Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claims 7 and 25 also applies to claim 29.
With respect to claim 33, Terada discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Terada in view of H.265 and Ye discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Terada/H.265/Ye additionally discloses:
wherein locations of pixels occupied by the two or more first tiles in the current picture are the same as location of pixels occupied by the two or more second tiles in the reconstructed collocated picture (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above, describing that the locations of pixels of the tile groups, i.e., two or more first tiles, in the current picture are the same as locations of pixels occupied by the tile group in the reconstructed collocated picture, i.e., two or more second tiles).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 33.
With respect to claim 34, Terada discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Terada in view of H.265 and Ye discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Terada/H.265/Ye additionally discloses:
wherein the boundary of the second region is a boundary between one of boundaries of the second region and one of boundaries of a third region comprising two or more third tiles in the reconstructed collocated picture (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above and Ye Fig. 2B, showing that the boundary of the second region, i.e., 202a and 202c, is a boundary between one of boundaries of the second region (the vertical dashed line separating 202a and 202c from 202b and 202d) and one of boundaries of a third region (e.g., 202b and 202d) comprising two or more third tiles in the reconstructed collocated picture (e.g., T)).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 34.
With respect to claim 35, Terada discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Terada in view of H.265 and Ye discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Terada/H.265/Ye additionally discloses:
wherein the boundary of the second region is one of an upper boundary, a left boundary, a right boundary and a lower boundary,
the upper boundary is upper boundaries of upper-most tiles among the two or more second tiles in the reconstructed collocated picture,
the left boundary is left boundaries of left-most tiles among the two or more second tiles in the reconstructed collocated picture,
the right boundary is right boundaries of right-most tiles among the two or more second tiles in the reconstructed collocated picture,
the lower boundary is lower boundaries of lower-most tiles among the two or more second tiles in the reconstructed collocated picture (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 1 and claim 34 above, including Ye Fig. 2B, showing the boundary of the second region (e.g., the vertical dashed line separating 202a and 202c from 202b and 202d) and its relationship among the two or more second tiles in the reconstructed collocated picture).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 35.
With respect to claim 36, Terada discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Terada in view of H.265 and Ye discloses all the elements of independent claim 7. Terada/H.265/Ye additionally discloses:
wherein locations of pixels occupied by the two or more first tiles in the current picture are the same as location of pixels occupied by the two or more second tiles in the reconstructed collocated picture (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 7 above and corresponding element of claim 33 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 36.
With respect to claim 37, Terada discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Terada in view of H.265 and Ye discloses all the elements of independent claim 7. Terada/H.265/Ye additionally discloses:
wherein the boundary of the second region is a boundary between one of boundaries of the second region and one of boundaries of a third region comprising two or more third tiles in the reconstructed collocated picture (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 7 above and corresponding element of claim 34 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 37.
With respect to claim 38, Terada discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Terada in view of H.265 and Ye discloses all the elements of independent claim 7. Terada/H.265/Ye additionally discloses:
wherein the boundary of the second region is one of an upper boundary, a left boundary, a right boundary and a lower boundary,
the upper boundary is upper boundaries of upper-most tiles among the two or more second tiles in the reconstructed collocated picture,
the left boundary is left boundaries of left-most tiles among the two or more second tiles in the reconstructed collocated picture,
the right boundary is right boundaries of right-most tiles among the two or more second tiles in the reconstructed collocated picture,
the lower boundary is lower boundaries of lower-most tiles among the two or more second tiles in the reconstructed collocated picture (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 7 above and corresponding element of claim 35 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 38.
With respect to claim 39, claim 39 recites the method of claim 33 including the sending of a bitstream comprising the syntax information. The citations provided with respect to claims 7 and 33 clearly recite the transmission of such a bitstream sent from the encoder to the decoder. Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claims 7 and 33 also applies to claim 39.
With respect to claim 40, claim 40 recites the method of claim 34 including the sending of a bitstream comprising the syntax information. The citations provided with respect to claims 7 and 34 clearly recite the transmission of such a bitstream sent from the encoder to the decoder. Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claims 7 and 34 also applies to claim 40.
With respect to claim 41, claim 41 recites the method of claim 35 including the sending of a bitstream comprising the syntax information. The citations provided with respect to claims 7 and 35 clearly recite the transmission of such a bitstream sent from the encoder to the decoder. Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claims 7 and 35 also applies to claim 41.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY JANE KILE UHL whose telephone number is (571)270-0337. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. 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.
/LINDSAY J UHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights