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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner notes that the present Specification and the cited prior art indicate that for certain coding modes the number of entry points in a slice can be derived as equal to another value stored in another part of the bitstream or can be derived as a difference between two other values stores in the slice or elsewhere in the bitstream based on known slice and LCU geometries. Given how readily this number can be derived from other data, Examiner suggests narrowing the claims to a more specific problem in the art and a more specific method of derivation that addresses it.
Regarding the newly amended language, Applicant argues: “As shown above, claim 1 requires determining that wavefront parallel processing (WPP) is in use based on a value of a flag in the parameter set, where the value of the flag in the parameter set is coded as a one-bit unsigned integer.”
Examiner notes that the amendments appears to be directed to a feature of the HEVC coding standard and is rejected in the updated reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “As shown above, Hendry explicitly discloses a syntax element that indicates whether WPP is in use (i.e., tiles_or entropy coding_sync_idc). This syntax element must be able to have three different values, namely 0, 1, and 2, to represent the three different coding scenarios, i.e., whether parallel decoding applies, whether WPP applies, and whether neither parallel decoding nor WPP applies.”
Examiner notes that Hendry also teaches that a one-bit flag can be used for this purpose, and it is the same flag that is disclosed in the Specification, probably because this feature is part of the HEVC standard. See updated reasons for rejection below.
Examiner suggests amending the claims to elaborate on substantive algorithmic changes that Applicant desires to make to this aspect of the HEVC.
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 (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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-9, 12-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180213245 to Hendry (“Hendry”) which is also cited in an IDS, in view of US 20170244977 to Esenlik (“Esenlik”).
Regarding Claim 1: “A method implemented by a decoder, the method comprising:
receiving a bitstream comprising a slice … and coded slice data that
follows the slice header, (“decoding method comprises receiving a bit stream including substreams that are LCU (Largest Coding Unit) rows” Hendry, Paragraph 11. “The slice segment [data] may be a sequence of coding tree units (CTU). The coding tree unit is a quad-tree structured coding unit and may be the largest coding unit (LCU).” Hendry, Paragraph 80-81. This is in line with Specification Paragraph 4.)
a slice header, a parameter set (See “PPS (Picture Parameter Set) and slice header” in Hendry, Paragraph 145. For example, “it is critical to signal the entry point of the WPP sub stream slice header” Hendry, Paragraph 101. This corresponds to the example in Specification, Paragraph 89.)
wherein the slice [header] comprises an array of entry point offsets, and (See treatment under section 112 above. Further, Prior art teaches a substantively similar feature: “The substream index [array] to specify the substream in the slice segment may have a value equal to or larger than 0 and equal to or less than num_entry_point_offsets,” which indicates that each value in the substream index corresponds to an entry_point_offset. See Hendry, Paragraphs 164, 142 and Fig. 11 which illustrates an entry point offset corresponding to each index value. Also note that this feature appears describe prior art standards in Specification, Paragraphs 44, 46.)
Hendry does not explicitly teach that this information is stored in a “slice header,” however it is well established in the video coding standards that index information is stored in a header while image data is stored in the body of the slice segment.
Cumulatively, Esenlik explicitly teaches: “it is necessary to signal, in a slice header, an entry point of a substream (LCU row).” Esenlik, Paragraph 133.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Hendry to signal this information in a slice header as taught in Esenlik, “to make parallel parsing possible.” See Esenlik, Paragraph 133.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.)
wherein the slice header does not include a syntax element (num_entry_point_offsets) specifying a number of entry point offsets in the slice obtained from the array of entry point offsets; … when the syntax element (num entry point offsets) is absent from the slice header, and (Hendry recognizes the problem where “the number of entry points may be the number of entry point offsets+ 1. The number of entry point offsets may be signaled from the slice header.” Hendry, Paragraph 148. However, such signaling is not required, and may be accomplished by (a) providing this value in a different part of the video or (b) by not providing it at all:
(a) “The information to specify the number of entry point offsets may be transmitted in the PPS, slice header, or slice segment header,” and thus need not be transmitted in the slice header. Hendry, Paragraph 199.
(b) “when the number of substreams is maximized, because the number of entry points is the same as the number of substreams, i.e., the number of LCU rows, the syntax element to specify the number of entry point offsets, i.e., the syntax element to indicate the number of entry points, need not be transmitted.” Hendry, Paragraph 154. Also, “the number of substreams may be specified by [b] the number of LCU rows or by [c] the number of entry points,” which is different from the claimed “number of entry point offsets.” Hendry, Paragraphs 147-148. And finally, an embodiment “In case num_entry point_offsets is not present, num_entry_ point_offsets may be estimated to be 0.” Hendry, Paragraph 189.)
determining that wavefront parallel processing (WPP) is in use based on a value of a flag in the parameter set, wherein the value of the flag in the parameter set is coded as a one-bit unsigned integer; (Specification notes that WPP is a feature of the HEVC standard in Paragraph 117, and supports the claimed feature as “when WPP is in use (e.g., when entropy_ coding_ sync_enabled_flag is equal to one),” in Paragraph 143.
Prior art teaches this feature: “entropy_ coding_sync_enabled_flag being 1 indicates that the WPP applies.” Hendry, Paragraph 172.)
in response to the determination that the WPP is in use based on the value of the flag in the parameter set, … when the slice is coded according to wavefront parallel processing (WPP), (Specification describes this features as “when WPP is in use (e.g., when entropy_ coding_ sync_enabled_flag is equal to one), the syntax element num entry point_ offsets may be signaled for the derivation of the variable NumEntryPoints. However, NumEntryPoints can be derived without such signaling.” in Paragraph 143.
Prior art teaches this feature: “entropy_ coding_sync_enabled_flag being 1 indicates that the WPP applies. … In case the tile or WPP applies, the number of entry point offsets in the slice segment header may be transmitted. … In case num_entry point_offsets is not present, num_entry_point_offsets may be estimated …” Hendry, Paragraphs 172-173, 189.)
deriving a number of entry points (NumEntryPoints) in the slice … based on a size of coding tree unit (CTU) rows in the slice; (For example, “if the WPP applies … the number of entry point offsets may be the picture 's LCU unit height -1 … the number of substreams in the slice or slice segment may be the same as the number of entry points” Hendry, Paragraphs 188-189, 195.)
determining entry point offsets for subsets of the coded slice based on the NumEntryPoints; and (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the entry point offsets determine entry points for the subsets of the slice, where the subsets can be substreams / rows or coding units such as CTUs and LCUs, “Accordingly, the obtained offsets may indicate entry points for each CTU row in the slice.” See Specification, Paragraph 158.
Prior art teaches this feature: “if the WPP applies … the number of entry point offsets may be the picture 's LCU unit height -1 … the number of substreams in the slice or slice segment may be the same as the number of entry points. At this time, the number of entry points may be specified by the number of entry point offsets” Hendry, Paragraphs 188-189, 195.)
decoding the slice based on the entry point offsets for the subsets of the coded slice data.” (“a video decoding apparatus parallel decoding a bit stream including substreams that are LCU (Largest Coding Unit) rows … the number of substreams in the slice or slice segment is the same as the number of LCU rows” Hendry, Paragraph 13, 194.)
Regarding Claim 4: “The method of claim 1, wherein the NumEntryPoints is derived based on a size of rows in the slice.” (”the number of substreams may be specified by the number of LCU rows or by the number of entry points,” where the number of rows in a slice is also based on the size of rows in the slice. Hendry, Paragraph 147, and Fig. 10.)
Regarding Claim 5: “The method of claim 1, wherein the NumEntryPoints is derived based on a size of columns in the slice.” (“num_entry_point_offsets may be the number of tile rows not less than 0 (num_tile_coulnm_minusl+ )*the number of tile rows (num_tile_row_minusl+ 1 )- 1 or less.” Hendry, Paragraph 161, and Fig. 10. “At this time, the number of entry points may be specified by the number of entry point offsets.” Hendry, Paragraph 202. Since tiles and slices have known sizes and share rows and columns, the number of columns in the tile is based on the size of the columns in the tile which is the same as the size of the columns in the slice. See, Hendry, Paragraph 89, and Figs. 4-5. In a basic example, “the tile may be an integer number of CTUs or LCUs that co-occur in a region that may be specified by one row and one column.” Hendry, Paragraph 87.
Where necessary, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to derive the size of the columns as a function of the size of the tile and the number of columns of the tile by using the exact mathematical relationship described in Hendry, in order to derive the NumEntryPoints based on the information available in the bitstream, so that “the syntax element to indicate the number of entry points, need not be transmitted.” Hendry, Paragraph 154.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.)
Regarding Claim 6: “The method of claim 1, wherein the NumEntryPoints is derived based on a number of coding tree units (CTUs) in the slice.” (“the tile may be an integer number of CTUs or LCUs that co-occur in a region that may be specified by one row and one column.” Hendry, Paragraph 87. As discussed in Claim 5 and in Hendry, Paragraphs 88-89, a slice is composed of a defined number of identical tiles, thus a number of coding tree units that is based on a number of coding tree units in the slice is also based on the number of coding tree units in the tiles comprising the slice. See statement of motivation in Claim 5.)
Regarding Claim 7: “The method of claim 1, wherein the NumEntryPoints is derived based on addresses in the slice.” (“As set forth above, in the slice header, the number of entry points may be signaled by the predetermined syntax element” where entry points exemplify addresses in the slice. Hendry, Paragraph 149.)
Regarding Claim 8: “The method of claim 1, wherein the NumEntryPoints is derived based on a size of the slice.” (“the number of substreams may be specified by the number of LCU rows or by the number of entry points” where the number of LCU rows is a measure of the size of the slice and it is equivalent to the number of entry points in this embodiment. See Hendry, Paragraph 147.)
Claim 9: “A method implemented by an encoder, the method comprising: …” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, and because prior art teaches that the claimed function can be performed by “the encoding apparatus and the decoding apparatus …” in Hendry, Paragraph 79, and because prior art teaches:
obtaining a reference slice of a coded reference picture; (“The slice in the current picture 400 consists of an independent slice segment 420 and four dependent slice segments divided by the slice segment boundaries 430, 440, and 450.” Hendry, Paragraph 89.)
decoding the reference slice of the coded reference picture based on the offsets for the subsets of the coded data in the reference slice; and (“a video decoding apparatus parallel decoding a bit stream including substreams that are LCU (Largest Coding Unit) rows” Hendry, Paragraph 13.)
Hendry uses reference and dependent slice coding, does not explicitly teach “encoding the current slice … into a bitstream, wherein the current slice is based on the reference slice”
Esenlik explains this process in the context of using the HEVC video coding standard to encode the video: “A dependent [current] slice (3) copies the header of a normal [reference] slice (2). … To put it another way, as above, the dependent slice and an entropy slice have no complete slide header, and refer to the header of a preceding normal slice.” Esenlik, Paragraphs 136, 128, 141.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Hendry to “encod[e], by the processor, a current slice into a bitstream based on the reference slice” as taught in Esenlik, in order to reduce the data required to code the dependent slices while still enabling the slices to be decoded independently and thus in parallel. Esenlik, Paragraph 128.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Claims 12-16 are rejected for reasons stated for Claims 4-8 respectively in view of the Claim 9 rejection.
Claim 17, “A video decoding device,” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, and because prior art teaches: “”a memory storing instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the memory, the one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to cause the video decoding device to: …” (“Each of the str uctural elements may be implemented by means of a program execution unit, such as a CPU or a processor, reading and executing the software program recorded on a recording medium” Esenlik, Paragraph 300 and statement of motivation in Claim 9.)
Claim 20 is rejected for reasons stated for each of the Claims 4-8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483