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
This action is in response to the remark entered on 05/20/2026.
Claims 1-4 & 21-36 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 5-20 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 05/20/2026, page 11-16, regarding the rejection of claim 1, and similar claims 4, 23, 26, 29 & 32 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant asserts that the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed limitations of, “applying the deblocking filter process to second subblock edges and second transform block edges of the second subpicture at the second boundary when the second loop_filter_across_subpic_enabled_flag is equal to 1.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because it is the combination of Chen and Lai that teaches the above claimed limitations. First, Chen already discloses of subblock edges and transform block edges as discussed in Paragraphs [0044]-[0045], [0113] & [0129], wherein PUs, reading as subpictures, comprise of sub-PU boundaries, reading as sub-blocks of PUs, that are in turn converted to artificial TU boundaries, reading as transform block edges. Furthermore, Chen discloses of applying deblocking processes to the boundaries of the PUs (containing sub-PUs) & TUs, thus deblocking of subblock edges and transform block edges. However, Chen does not disclose of, “applying the deblocking filter process to second subblock edges and second transform block edges of the second subpicture at the second boundary when the second loop_filter_across _subpic_enabled_flag is equal to 1,” and thus relies upon Lai to teach these claim limitations. In Paragraphs [0088]-[0089] & pgs. 3-4 in the provisional, Lai teaches of loop_filter_across _subpic_enabled_flag[1], as first loop_filter_across_subpic_enabled _flag, being equal to 0 specifies that in-loop filtering operations are not performed across the boundaries of the 1-th or first sub-picture in each coded picture in the CVS and loop_filter_across_subpic_enabled_flag[2], as second loop_filter_across_ subpic_enabled_flag, being equal to 1 specifies that in-loop filtering operations may be performed across the boundaries of the 2-th or second sub-picture in each coded picture in the CVS. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Therefore, the combination of Chen and Lai teach or suggest “applying the deblocking filter process to second subblock edges and second transform block edges of the second subpicture at the second boundary when the second loop_filter_across _subpic_enabled_flag is equal to 1.”
Furthermore, in response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of Applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., The relevant standard documents define a CU, a PU, and a block as follows: coding unit (CU): A coding block of luma samples, two corresponding coding blocks of chroma samples of a picture that has three sample arrays, or a coding block of samples of a monochrome picture or a picture that is coded using three separate colour planes and syntax structures used to code the samples. picture unit (PU): A set of NAL units that are associated with each other according to a specified classification rule, are consecutive in decoding order, and contain exactly one coded picture. block: An MxN (M-column by N-row) array of samples, or an MxN array of transform coefficients "Versatile Video Coding (Draft 6)," Joint Video Experts Team (JVET), July 3-12, 2019 ("H.266 Draft"), 1 at 4 and 5; "Versatile Video Coding," H.266, ITU-T, August 2020”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, during patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard: The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must “conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description.” 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). See also In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259, 94 USPQ2d 1640, 1643 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Thus, the rejection of claims 1, 4, 23, 26, 29 & 32 under 35 USC 103 is maintained.
Applicant’s remarks filed 05/20/2026, page 16, with respect to the rejection of claims 2-3, 21-22, 24-25, 27-28, 30-31 & 33-36 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant relies on the patentability of the claims from which these claims depend to traverse the rejection without prejudice to any further basis for patentability of these claims based on the additional elements recited.
Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant because the combination of Chen, Coban, and Lai teach independent claims 1, 4, 23, 26, 29 & 32 as outlined below. Thus, claims 2-3, 21-22, 24-25, 27-28, 30-31 & 33-36 are also rejected for the similar reasons as outlined below.
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 of this title, 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 1-4, 21-34 & 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2015/0085929 A1) (hereinafter Chen) in view of Coban et al., "Support of Independent Sub-Pictures," 9th. JCT-VC MEETING; 20120427 - 20120507; Geneva; (Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding of ITU-T SG16 WP6 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11), no. JCTVC-I0356 17 April 2012 (2012-04-17) (hereinafter Coban), and further in view of Lai et al. (US 2022/0303587 A1, with priority to 62/896,032) (hereinafter Lai).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a method implemented by a video decoder [Paragraph [0325]-[0328], video decoder 30, performing decoding process] and comprising:
receiving, by the video decoder, a video bitstream comprising a picture, a first flag, and a second flag, wherein the picture comprises a first subpicture and a second subpicture, wherein a first boundary of the first subpicture is shared with a second boundary of the second subpicture, and wherein the first boundary is a right boundary and the second boundary is a left boundary, or the first boundary is a bottom boundary and the second boundary is a top boundary [Paragraph [0083], [0117] & [0249]-[0250], Fig. 8, Decoder receiving bitstream, decoding syntax elements as flags that include first and second flags, and decoding of video data containing slices, or CTUs as subpictures, with boundaries between P0/P1, P0/Q0]; and
applying the deblocking filter process to second subblock edges and second transform block edges of the second subpicture at the second boundary [Paragraph [0044]-[0045], [0113] & [0129], Deblocking filter processes applied to sub-PU boundaries, as subblock edges, and transform unit (TU) boundaries, as transform block edges].
However, Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the first subpicture and the second subpicture are rectangular regions of one or more slices within the picture.
Coban teaches that wherein the first subpicture and the second subpicture are rectangular regions of one or more slices within the picture [I. Introduction, Fig. 1, Partitioning picture into rectangular sub-pictures (sub-pic 0, sub-pic 1, sub-pic 2, each sub-picture starts a new slice].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chen to integrate rectangular subpictures in Coban as above, in order to support more flexible parallelism for multiple independent decoders that don’t share reference picture regions or use neighboring regions’ (e.g. neighboring tiles) decoded pixel samples (Coban, Abstract).
However, Chen and Coban do not explicitly disclose receiving, by the video decoder, a video bitstream comprising a picture, a first loop_filter_across_subpic_ enabled flag, and a second loop filter across_subpic_enabled _flag, wherein the picture comprises a first subpicture corresponding to the first loop _filter_across subpic enabled flag and a second subpicture corresponding to the second loop_filter_across_subpic _enabled _flag; not applying a deblocking filter process to first subblock edges and first transform block edges of the first subpicture at the first boundary when the first loop filter_across _subpic_enabled_flag is equal to 0; and applying the deblocking filter process to second subblock edges and second transform block edges of the second subpicture at the second boundary when the second loop_filter_across_subpic_enabled _flag is equal to 1.
Lai teaches of receiving, by the video decoder, a video bitstream comprising a picture, a first loop_filter_across_subpic_enabled flag, and a second loop_filter _across_subpic_enabled_flag, wherein the picture comprises a first subpicture corresponding to the first loop_filter_across subpic enabled flag and a second subpicture corresponding to the second loop_filter_across_subpic_enabled _flag [Paragraph [0088]-[0089] supported in pgs. 3-4 in provisional, loop_filter _across_subpic_enabled_flag[i] equal to 1 specifies that in-loop filtering operations may be performed across the boundaries of the i-th sub-picture in each coded picture in the CVS, wherein i is an integer from 0 to NumSubPics within for loop, with corresponding i-th sub-picture with respective loop_filter_across_subpic_enabled_flag[i]];
not applying a deblocking filter process to first subblock edges and first transform block edges of the first subpicture at the first boundary when the first loop filter_across_subpic_enabled_flag is equal to 0 [Paragraph [0088]-[0089] supported in pgs. 3-4 in provisional, loop_filter_across_subpic_enabled_flag[1] equal to 0 specifies that in-loop filtering operations are not performed across the boundaries of the 1-th or first sub-picture in each coded picture in the CVS]; and
applying the deblocking filter process to second subblock edges and second transform block edges of the second subpicture at the second boundary when the second loop_filter_across_subpic_enabled_flag is equal to 1 [Paragraph [0088]-[0089] supported in pgs. 3-4 in provisional, loop_filter_across_subpic_enabled_flag[2] equal to 1 specifies that in-loop filtering operations may be performed across the boundaries of the 2-th or second sub-picture in each coded picture in the CVS].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chen to integrate and implement the loop_filter_across_subpic_enabled_flag syntax in Lai as above, in order to improve and enhance video picture quality (Lai, Paragraphs [0005]).
Regarding claim 2, Chen, Coban, and Lai disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Lai teaches wherein the first loop_filter_across_subpic_enabled _flag equal to 1 or the second loop_filter_across_subpic_enabled_flag equal to 1 specifies that in-loop filtering operations may be performed across boundaries of a subpicture in each coded picture in a coded video sequence (CVS) [Paragraph [0088]-[0089] supported in pgs. 3-4 in provisional, loop_filter_across_subpic_enabled _flag[i] equal to 1 specifies that in-loop filtering operations may be performed across the boundaries of the i-th sub-picture in each coded picture in the CVS].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chen to integrate and implement the loop_filter_across_subpic_enabled_flag syntax in Lai as above, in order to improve and enhance video picture quality (Lai, Paragraphs [0005]).
Regarding claim 3, Chen, Coban, and Lai disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Lai teaches wherein the first loop_filter_across_subpic_enabled _flag equal to 0 or the second loop_filter_across subpic_enabled flag equal to 1 equal to 0 specifies that in-loop filtering operations are not performed across boundaries of a subpicture in each coded picture in a coded video sequence (CVS) [Paragraph [0088]-[0089] supported in pgs. 3-4 in provisional, loop_filter_across_subpic_enabled _flag[i] equal to 0 specifies that in-loop filtering operations are not performed across the boundaries of the i-th sub-picture in each coded picture in the CVS].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chen to integrate and implement the loop_filter_across_subpic_enabled_flag syntax in Lai as above, in order to improve and enhance video picture quality (Lai, Paragraphs [0005]).
Regarding claims (4 & 21-22), claims (4 & 21-22) are drawn to the video decoder using/performing the same method as claimed in claims (1-3). Therefore claims (4 & 21-22) correspond to method claims (1-3), respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons of obvious as used above.
Furthermore, Chen discloses the video decoder comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions [Paragraphs [0066] & [0357]-[0358], video decoder containing one or more microprocessors, wherein the techniques are implemented partially in software, a device may store instructions for the software in a suitable, non-transitory computer-readable medium and execute the instructions in hardware using one or more processors].
Regarding claim (23-25), computer program product comprising instructions claims (23-25) correspond to the same method as claimed in claims (1-3), and therefore are also rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as listed above.
Furthermore, Chen discloses of a computer program product comprising instructions that are stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium [Paragraphs [0066] & [0357]-[0358], video decoder containing one or more microprocessors, wherein the techniques are implemented partially in software, a device may store instructions for the software in a suitable, non-transitory computer-readable medium and execute the instructions in hardware using one or more processors].
Regarding claim (26-28), non-transitory computer-readable medium claims (26-28) correspond to the same method as claimed in claims (1-3), and therefore are also rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as listed above.
Furthermore, Chen discloses of a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions [Paragraphs [0066] & [0357]-[0358], video decoder containing one or more microprocessors, wherein the techniques are implemented partially in software, a device may store instructions for the software in a suitable, non-transitory computer-readable medium and execute the instructions in hardware using one or more processors].
Regarding claims (29-31), claims (29-31) are drawn to a method implemented by a video encoder having limitations similar to the decoding method of using the same as claimed in claims (1-3) treated in the above rejection. Therefore, method claims (29-31) correspond to method claims (1-3) and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Furthermore, Chen discloses of a method implemented by a video encoder [Paragraphs [0064]-[0066], video encoder 20 running encoding process].
Regarding claims (32-34), claims (32-34) are drawn to the video encoder using/performing the same method as claimed in claims (29-31). Therefore claims (32-34) correspond to method claims (29-32), respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons of obvious as used above.
Furthermore, Chen discloses the video encoder comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions [Paragraphs [0064]-[0066] & [0357]-[0358], video encoder containing one or more microprocessors, wherein the techniques are implemented partially in software, a device may store instructions for the software in a suitable, non-transitory computer-readable medium and execute the instructions in hardware using one or more processors].
Regarding claim 36, Chen, Coban, and Lai disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Chen discloses wherein a transform block is a rectangular MxN block of samples resulting from a transform in a decoding process [Paragraphs [0064]-[0071] & [0075], CU sizes include 2N×N as MxN, with TUs being typically sized based on the size of PUs within a given CU defined for a partitioned CTU or LCU, and thus are also 2N×N as MxN].
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2015/0085929 A1) (hereinafter Chen), Coban et al., "Support of Independent Sub-Pictures," 9th. JCT-VC MEETING; 20120427 - 20120507; Geneva; (Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding of ITU-T SG16 WP6 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11), no. JCTVC-I0356 17 April 2012 (2012-04-17) (hereinafter Coban), and Lai et al. (US 2022/0303587 A1, with priority to 62/896,032) (hereinafter Lai) in view of Zhu et al. (WO 2019/188944 A1) (hereinafter Zhu).
Regarding claim 35, Chen, Coban, and Lai disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Chen discloses of applying the deblocking filter process to the first subblock edges and the first transform block edges [Paragraph [0044]-[0045], [0113] & [0129], Deblocking filter processes applied to sub-PU boundaries, as subblock edges, and transform unit (TU) boundaries, as transform block edges].
However, Chen, Coban, and Lai do not explicitly disclose applying the deblocking filter process to the first subblock edges and the first transform block edges not at the first boundary when the first loop_filter_across subpic enabled flag is equal to 0.
Zhu teaches applying the deblocking filter process to the first subblock edges and the first transform block edges not at the first boundary when the first loop_filter _across_subpic_enabled_flag is equal to 0 [Paragraph [0029]-[0030] & [0039]-[0041], Further, in ITU-T H.265, the deblocking filter may be applied differently to CTU boundaries that coincide with slice and tile boundaries compared with CTU boundaries that do not coincide with slice and tile boundaries, wherein a flag, loop_filter_across_tiles_enabled_flag, reading as loop_filter_across_subpic _enabled_flag, present in a PPS enables/disables the deblocking filter across CTU boundaries that coincide with tile boundaries, while enabling the deblocking filter for CTU boundaries, reading as subblock edges and transform block edges, that do not coincide slice and tile boundaries, as subpicture boundaries].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chen to integrate and implement the loop-filtering techniques across CTU boundaries in Zhu as above, to prevent the use of support samples when a deblocking filter exceeds a boundary and instead use of padding operations to create support samples to avoid a blurring or artifacts (Zhu, Paragraphs [0159] & [0164]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 PM.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
/DANIEL CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights