DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6 February 2026 has been entered.
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 .
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant amended the independent claims to recite “a slice address based on a number of slices in the sub-picture” and claimed support in ¶ [0102] and ¶ [0143] which recite “the sub-picture 510 may include any number of slices 515” and “the slice address 1136 is signaled as an index based on the slice’s position in the sub-picture”. Examiner does not find the specification’s “slice’s position” inherently relates to the claimed “number of slices”. For the purposes of examination, the claimed “number” is read as the supported “position”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Zhou does not disclose the slice address based on unsupported new matter. Applicant also states “Zhou signals a slice address which is based on the slice’s position in the picture (i.e. first_slice_in_pic_flag = = 0), then Zhou signals the slice address (i.e., slice_address). Therefore, Zhou signals a slice address which is based on the slice’s position in the picture, but not the number of slices in the sub-picture” (emphasis in original). Examiner respectfully disagrees and respectfully directs Applicant to Zhou: ¶ [0104]: If a slice is part of a sub-picture k (k=0, 1, . . . , number of sub-pictures-1) in a picture, the value of slice_substream_id is set to k. Examiner respectfully submits Zhou discloses the slice_substream_id syntax which may considered a slice address based on a number of slices. Furthermore, Examiner submits the slice address based on the slice’s position in the picture also discloses the slice’s position in each and any subpicture, as each subpicture location is derived on a picture coordinate system as described in Zhou: ¶ [0093]: The decoder control component 1400 may also determine… the relative location of each sub-picture within a picture from information encoded in the bit stream.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-9, 15-16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendry et al. (US 2015/0341642 A1) in view of Zhou (US 2013/0202051 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15, Hendry discloses a method implemented by a encoder/decoder, the method comprising: receiving a bitstream comprising a picture [Hendry: ¶ [0038]: In the inter prediction, a prediction process may be performed on the basis of information on at least one of a previous picture and/or a subsequent picture of a current picture to create a prediction block] partitioned into a sub-picture [Hendry: FIG. 10 and ¶ [0157]: In the example illustrated in FIG. 10, a picture 1010 includes two slices], wherein the sub-picture is capable of including more than one slice [Hendry: FIG. 10 and ¶ [0157]: each slice includes eight tiles], wherein each slice is capable of including more than one tile [Hendry: ¶ [0158]: In the example illustrated in FIG. 10, the first slice includes tiles 0 to 7 and the second slice includes tiles 8 to 15. In the example illustrated in FIG. 10, each tile includes four LCUs], and wherein each slice is contained in a single network abstraction layer (NAL) unit [Hendry: ¶ [0085]: A slice segment includes an integer number of CTUs (or LCUs) that are consecutively ordered in a tile scan and that are included in a single network abstraction layer (NAL) unit]; obtaining a width of the sub-picture in units of coding tree blocks (CTBs) [Hendry: ¶ [0190]: num_tile_columns_minus1 may specify the width of the i-th tile column in the unit of CTBs (that is, LCUs). That is, num_tile_columns_minus1+1 for offset_tile_id[i] indicates a value by which the width of the i-th tile column is expressed in the unit of CTBs] and a height of the sub-picture in units of CTBs from the bitstream [Hendry: ¶ [0191]: num_tile_rows_minus1 may specify the height of the i-th the row in the unit of CTBs (that is, LCUs). That is, num_tile_rows_minus1+1 for offset_tile_id[i] indicates a value by which the height of the i-th tile row is expressed in the unit of CTBs], wherein each of the CTBs is a number of samples divided from a single component [Hendry: ¶ [0080]: A slice may include a natural number of coding tree units (CTU) or coding tree blocks (CTB) belonging to an independent slice segment; and ¶ [0093]: A tile column is a rectangular region of CTBs (or LCUs) having the same height as the height of the picture and having a width specified by signaling]; and decoding coding tree units (CTUs) of the sub-picture based on the width of the sub-picture and the height of the sub-picture [Hendry: ¶ [0013]: performing a decoding operation on the basis of the tile and the slice, wherein the current picture includes one or more tiles and one or more slices; and ¶ [[0084]: In this description, for the purpose of easy understanding of the invention, the coding tree unit (CTU), the largest coding unit (LCU), and the coding tree block (CTB) may be used interchangeably if necessary. ¶ [0085]: A slice segment includes an integer number of CTUs (or LCUs) that are consecutively ordered in a tile scan and that are included in a single network abstraction layer (NAL) unit].
Hendry may not explicitly disclose wherein each sub- picture is indicated by a slice sub-picture identifier (ID) in a slice header, wherein the slice sub- picture ID specifies an ID of the sub-picture that contains a slice associated with the slice header, wherein the slice header includes a slice address based on a number of slices in the sub-picture, and wherein each tile comprises a rectangular region of coding tree units (CTUs).
However, Zhou discloses a method implemented by a encoder/decoder, the method comprising: receiving a bitstream comprising a picture partitioned into sub-pictures [Zhou: FIG. 1], wherein each sub- picture is indicated by a slice sub-picture identifier (ID) [Zhou: ¶ [0104]: In some embodiments, this unique identifier is encoded in the slice header of each slice of a sub-picture… that includes signaling of a sub-picture identifier] in a slice header [Zhou: ¶ [0104]; and ¶ [0021]] wherein the slice sub- picture ID specifies an ID of the sub-picture that contains a slice associated with the slice header, wherein each sub-picture is capable of including more than one slice [Zhou: ¶ [0029]: A slice is a sequence of LCUs in a picture that may be decoded independently from LCUs in other slices in the picture. A slice header is a set of parameters signaled in the compressed stream that apply to a slice], wherein each slice is capable of including more than one tile [Zhou: ¶ [0032]: In addition to slices as introduced in H.264/AVC, these tools include tiling, wavefront parallel processing (WPP), and entropy slices], wherein each tile comprises a rectangular region of coding tree units (CTUs) [Zhou: ¶ [0032]: Tiling allows the division of a picture horizontally and vertically into multiple rectangular partitions referred to as tiles].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the picture division scheme of Zhou with the processing of Hendry in order to provide improved image processing by providing smoother video.
Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 16, Hendry in view of Zhou discloses all the limitations of Claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Hendry in view of Zhou discloses further comprising determining a position of the sub-picture in units of CTBs from the bitstream [Hendry: ¶ [0167]: A slice includes an integer number of CTBs that are consecutively ordered in the tile scan. Division of each picture into slices is mentioned as partitioning. A coding tree block address may be derived from the first coding tree block address in the slice (as expressed in the slice header)].
Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 19, Hendry in view of Zhou discloses all the limitations of Claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Hendry in view of Zhou discloses wherein the width of the sub-picture is specified by subpic_width_minus1, and wherein the height of the sub-picture is specified by subpic_height_minus1 [Hendry: ¶ [0093]: A tile column is a rectangular region of CTBs (or LCUs) having the same height as the height of the picture and having a width specified by signaling. A tile row is a rectangular region having the same width as the width of the picture and having a height specified by signaling].
Regarding Claims 7, 14, and 20, Hendry in view of Zhou discloses all the limitations of Claims 2, 9, and 16, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Hendry in view of Zhou discloses wherein the width, the height, and the position of the sub-picture are obtained from a sequence parameter set (SPS) in the bitstream [Hendry: ¶ [0056]: The entropy encoding module 130 may give a predetermined change to a parameter set or syntaxes to be transmitted, if necessary].
Claim(s) 3, 5, 10, 12, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendry in view of Zhou as applied to claims 2, 9, and 16 above, and further in view of Silverbrook et al. (US 2010/0014784 A1).
Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 17, Hendry in view of Zhou discloses all the limitations of Claims 2, 9, and 16, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Hendry in view of Zhou may not explicitly disclose wherein the position of the sub-picture is specified as a vertical position of a top left CTU of the sub-picture and a horizontal position of the top left CTU of the sub-picture.
However, Liu discloses wherein the position of the sub-picture is specified as a vertical position of a top left CTU of the sub-picture and a horizontal position of the top left CTU of the sub-picture [Silverbrook: ¶ [1168]: This command tells Callisto to return all the pixel values in the defined region of the processed image. This command requires four arguments (expressed in four bytes) if supplied: TopLeftX, TopLeftY, SizeX and SizeY. The size parameters are in processed image units, and TopLeftX and TopLeftY are expressed in processed image coordinates].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the syntax of Silverbrook with the processing of Hendry in view of Zhou in order to provide relative location standard of Silverbrook in order to work with other systems which work within that standard, improving usability.
Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 18, Hendry in view of Zhou discloses all the limitations of Claims 3, 10, and 17, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Hendry in view of Zhou discloses wherein the vertical position of the top left CTU of the sub-picture is specified by subpic_ctu_top_left_y, and wherein the vertical position of the top left CTU of the sub-picture is specified by subpic_ctu_top_left_x [Silverbrook: ¶ [1168]].
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendry in view of Zhou and Silverbrook as applied to claim 3 and 10 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0107006 A1).
Regarding Claims 4, and 11, Hendry in view of Zhou and Silverbrook discloses all the limitations of Claims 3 and 10, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Hendry in view of Zhou and Silverbrook may not explicitly disclose wherein the position of the sub-picture is further specified as a difference between a top left CTU of the picture and the top left CTU of the sub-picture.
However, Lee discloses wherein the position of the sub-picture is further specified as a difference between a top left CTU of the picture and the top left CTU of the sub-picture [Lee: ¶ [0258]: Values of the sub_pic_on_ori_pic_top field and the sub_pic_on_ori_pic_left field may be in the range of 0 indicating the top-left corner of the original picture (inclusive) to values of the ori_pic_height field and ori_pic_width field (exclusive). A num_sub_pic_regions field indicates the number of sub-picture regions constituting a sub-picture. A sub_pic_reg_top[i] field and a sub_pic_reg_left[i] field respectively indicate the top sample row and the left-most sample column of a corresponding (i-th) sub-picture region on each sub-picture. A correlation (positional order and disposition) between a plurality of sub-picture regions in one sub-picture can be derived through these fields. Values of the sub_pic_reg_top[i] field and sub_pic_reg_left[i] field may be in the range of 0 indicating the top-left corner of each sub-picture (inclusive) to the width and height of the sub-picture (exclusive). Here, the width and height of the sub-picture can be derived from a visual sample entry. A sub_pic_reg_width[i] field and a sub_pic_reg_height[i] field respectively indicate the width and height of the corresponding (i-th) sub-picture region].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the correlation of Lee with the processes of Hendry in view of Zhou and Silverbrook in order to provide computational shortcuts for processes, improving overall output efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R MESSMORE whose telephone number is (571)272-2773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST/EDT.
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.
/JONATHAN R MESSMORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482