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 June 9, 2026.
Claims 21-22, 24-25 & 29-30 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 1-20, 23, 26 & 27-28 are cancelled.
Claim 30 is amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 06/08/2026, pages 5-6, regarding the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) of claims 21-22, 24-25 & 29-30, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Paragraph [0210] in originally-filed specification provides support for the claimed limitation of, “wherein the SPS virtual boundary present flag is restricted to have a value of 1 based on the subpicture present flag indicating that the subpicture related information is included in the SPS.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The term, “restricted,” or “restriction,” is nowhere mentioned nor supported in the originally-filed specification. Thus the rejection of claims 21-22, 24-25 & 29-30 is maintained under 35 USC 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement by introducing new matter.
Applicant's remarks filed 06/08/2026, pages 6-8, regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103 and obviousness-type double rejections of claim 21, and similarly claims 29-30, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Bross does not suggest, “wherein the SPS virtual boundary present flag is restricted to have a value of 1 based on the subpicture present flag indicating that the subpicture related information is included in the SPS.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Section 7.3.2.3 Sequence parameter set RBSP syntax and Section 7.3.2.6, Bross states that within picture header RBSP syntax, computer code is read line-by-line from top to bottom, therefore wherein subpics_present_flag, equal to 1, the computer continues to read downwards until encountering sps_loop_filter_across_virtual_boundaries_disabled _present_flag, reading as the claimed SPS virtual boundary present flag, that automatically is restricted to, or being true(1), and further restricting syntax sps_num_ver/hor _virtual_boundaries as the number of virtual boundaries and sps_virtual_boundaries _pos(x/y)[i] as info on positions of virtual boundaries to being in SPS. Therefore Bross still reads on wherein the SPS includes an SPS virtual boundary present flag related to whether the SPS includes the information on the positions of the virtual boundaries, and wherein the SPS virtual boundary present flag is restricted to have a value of 1 based on the subpicture present flag indicating that the subpicture related information is included in the SPS.
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 value of the SPS virtual boundary present flag is algorithmically restricted/forced to have a value of 1,” and, “does not condition the value of sps_loop_filter_across_virtual_boundaries_disabled_present_flag on subpics_present_flag”) 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).
Thus, the rejection of claim 21, and similarly claims 29-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and as obviousness-type double patenting is maintained.
Applicant’s remarks filed 06/08/2026, page 9, with respect to the patentability of claims 22 & 24-25 under 35 USC 103 and obviousness-type double patenting 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 Araki & Bross teaches independent claim 21 as outlined below. Thus, claims 22 & 24-25 are also rejected for the similar reasons as outlined below.
Patent US 11,647,232 B2
Claims 21-22 & 29-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 11,647,232 B2 in view of Bross et al.; “Versatile Video Coding (Draft 7),” JVET-P2001, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, 16th Meeting: Geneva, CH, October 1-11, 2019 (hereinafter Bross).
Instant Application
US 11,647,232 B2
21. An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, comprising:
1. An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, comprising:
obtaining image information including residual information through a bitstream;
obtaining image information including residual information, […] through a bitstream;
generating reconstructed samples of a current picture based on the residual information; and
generating reconstructed samples, based on the residual samples […]; and
generating modified reconstructed samples based on an in-loop filtering process for the reconstructed samples,
generating modified reconstructed samples by performing an in-loop filtering process of the reconstructed samples,
wherein the image information includes a sequence parameter set (SPS) and a picture header, and
wherein the image information includes a sequence parameter set (SPS), and picture header information referring to the SPS, and
wherein the SPS includes a subpicture present flag indicating whether subpicture related information is included in the SPS, wherein the subpicture related information includes information on a number of subpictures and information on positions of the subpictures,
wherein when the subpicture present flag indicates that the subpicture related information is included in the SPS, information on positions of virtual boundaries is restricted not to be in the picture header.
wherein whether additional virtual boundaries-related information is included in the SPS or the picture header information is determined based on whether reference picture resampling is enabled.
wherein the SPS includes an SPS virtual boundary present flag related to whether the SPS includes the information on the positions of the virtual boundaries. and wherein the SPS virtual boundary present flag is restricted to have a value of 1 based on the subpicture present flag indicating that the subpicture related information is included in the SPS.
As noted above, although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims of wherein the SPS includes a subpicture present flag indicating whether subpicture related information is included in the SPS, wherein the subpicture related information includes information on a number of subpictures and information on positions of the subpictures, and wherein when the subpicture present flag indicates that the subpicture related information is included in the SPS wherein the SPS includes an SPS virtual boundary present flag related to whether the SPS includes the information on the positions of the virtual boundaries. and wherein the SPS virtual boundary present flag is restricted to have a value of 1 based on the subpicture present flag indicating that the subpicture related information is included in the SPS. However, these limitations are known in the art as described in Bross. Bross, in Section 7.3.2.3 & Section 7.4.3.3, Sequence parameter set RBSP syntax, teaches of the parameter subpics_present_flag, wherein subpics_present_flag equal to 1 specifies that subpicture parameters are present in in the SPS RBSP syntax, that subsequently leads to the SPS including sps_num_subpics_minus1 specifies the number of subpictures, and subpic_ctu_top_left_x[i] specifies horizontal position of top left CTU of i-th subpicture in unit of CtbSizeY, and subpic_ctu_top_left_y[i] specifies vertical position of top left CTU of i-th subpicture in unit of CtbSizeY, and sps_num_ver/hor _virtual_boundaries as number of virtual boundaries and sps_virtual_boundaries _pos(x/y)[i] as info on positions of virtual boundaries, and Section 7.3.2.6 & Section 7.4.3.6, Picture header RBSP syntax, including syntaxes ph_virtual _boundaries_pos_x and ph_virtual_boundaries_pos_y as information on positions of virtual boundaries, and in Section 7.3.2.6 & Section 7.4.3.6, Picture header RBSP syntax, including syntaxes ph_virtual _boundaries_pos_x and ph_virtual_boundaries _pos_y as information on positions of virtual boundaries, and picture header RBSP syntax, wherein subpics_present_flag, equal to 1 leads to sps_loop_filter_across_virtual _boundaries_disabled_present_flag as claimed SPS virtual boundary present flag, restricted to or being true(1) and restricting syntax sps_num_ver/hor _virtual_boundaries as number of virtual boundaries and sps_virtual_boundaries _pos(x/y)[i] as info on positions of virtual boundaries to being in SPS. 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 claim 1 of US 11,683,532 B2 to integrate subpicture signaling as described in Bross as above, to specify a video coding technology with a compression capability that is substantially beyond that of the prior generations of such standards, and the second is for this technology to be highly versatile for effective use in a broadened range of applications (Bross, Abstract).
Regarding claims 22, although the claims are not identical, the further limitations would have been obvious for the same reasons of obviousness as set forth in the rejections outlined below with respect to Bross.
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 is drawn to an image encoding method having limitations similar to the image decoding method of using the same as claimed in claim 21 treated in the above rejection. Therefore, method claim 21 corresponds to method claim 29 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 30, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 30 corresponds to image encoding method 29, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as listed above.
Claim 24-25 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 11,647,232 B2 and Bross et al.; “Versatile Video Coding (Draft 7),” JVET-P2001, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, 16th Meeting: Geneva, CH, October 1-11, 2019 (hereinafter Bross) in view of Chang et al. (US 2021/0076074 A1 with provisional benefit to 62/909,135) (hereinafter Chang).
Regarding claims 24-25, although the claims are not identical, the further limitations would have been obvious for the same reasons of obviousness as set forth in the rejections outlined below with respect to Bross and Chang.
These are nonstatutory double patenting rejections.
Patent US 11,683,532 B2
Claims 21-22 & 29-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 11,683,532 B2 in view of Bross et al.; “Versatile Video Coding (Draft 7),” JVET-P2001, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, 16th Meeting: Geneva, CH, October 1-11, 2019 (hereinafter Bross).
Instant Application
US 11,683,532 B2
21. An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, comprising:
1. An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, comprising:
obtaining image information including residual information through a bitstream;
obtaining image information including residual information through a bitstream;
generating reconstructed samples of a current picture based on the residual information; and
generating reconstructed samples of a current picture, based on the residual information; and
generating modified reconstructed samples based on an in-loop filtering process for the reconstructed samples,
generating modified reconstructed samples, based on an in-loop filtering process for the reconstructed samples,
wherein the image information includes a sequence parameter set (SPS) and a picture header, and
wherein the image information includes a sequence parameter set (SPS) and picture header information referring to the SPS
wherein the SPS includes a subpicture present flag indicating whether subpicture related information is included in the SPS,
wherein the SPS includes a reference picture resampling enabled flag, wherein the reference picture resampling enabled flag is related to whether reference picture resampling is enabled,
wherein the subpicture related information includes information on a number of subpictures and information on positions of the subpictures,
wherein the additional virtual boundaries-related information includes information on a number of vertical virtual boundaries, information on positions of the vertical virtual boundaries, information on a number of horizontal virtual boundaries, and information on positions of the horizontal virtual boundaries.
wherein when the subpicture present flag indicates that the subpicture related information is included in the SPS, information on positions of virtual boundaries is restricted not to be in the picture header,
wherein whether additional virtual boundaries-related information is included in the SPS or the picture header information is determined based on the reference picture resampling enabled flag, and
wherein the SPS includes an SPS virtual boundary present flag related to whether the SPS includes the information on the positions of the virtual boundaries. and wherein the SPS virtual boundary present flag is restricted to have a value of 1 based on the subpicture present flag indicating that the subpicture related information is included in the SPS.
As noted above, although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims of wherein the SPS includes a subpicture present flag indicating whether subpicture related information is included in the SPS, wherein the subpicture related information includes information on a number of subpictures, wherein the picture header includes information on positions of virtual boundaries, wherein the SPS includes an SPS virtual boundary present flag related to whether the SPS includes the information on the positions of the virtual boundaries and wherein the SPS virtual boundary present flag is restricted to have a value of 1 based on the subpicture present flag indicating that the subpicture related information is included in the SPS. However, these limitations are known in the art as described in Bross. Bross, in Section 7.3.2.3 & Section 7.4.3.3, Sequence parameter set RBSP syntax, teaches of the parameter subpics_present_flag, wherein subpics_present_flag equal to 1 specifies that subpicture parameters are present in in the SPS RBSP syntax, that subsequently leads to the SPS including sps_num_subpics _minus1 specifies the number of subpictures, and subpic_ctu_top_left_x[ i ] specifies horizontal position of top left CTU of i-th subpicture in unit of CtbSizeY, and subpic_ctu_top_left_y[ i ] specifies vertical position of top left CTU of i-th subpicture in unit of CtbSizeY, and sps_num_ver/hor_virtual_boundaries as number of virtual boundaries and sps_virtual_boundaries_pos(x/y)[i] as info on positions of virtual boundaries, Section 7.3.2.6 & Section 7.4.3.6, Picture header RBSP syntax, including syntaxes ph_virtual _boundaries_pos_x and ph_virtual_boundaries _pos_y as information on positions of virtual boundaries, and picture header RBSP syntax, wherein subpics_present_flag, equal to 1 leads to sps_loop_filter_across_virtual _boundaries_disabled_present_flag as claimed SPS virtual boundary present flag, restricted to or being true(1) and restricting syntax sps_num_ver/hor _virtual_boundaries as number of virtual boundaries and sps_virtual_boundaries _pos(x/y)[i] as info on positions of virtual boundaries to being in SPS. 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 claim 1 of US 11,683,532 B2 to integrate subpicture signaling as described in Bross as above, to specify a video coding technology with a compression capability that is substantially beyond that of the prior generations of such standards, and the second is for this technology to be highly versatile for effective use in a broadened range of applications (Bross, Abstract).
Regarding claims 22, although the claims are not identical, the further limitations would have been obvious for the same reasons of obviousness as set forth in the rejections outlined below with respect to Bross.
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 is drawn to an image encoding method having limitations similar to the image decoding method of using the same as claimed in claim 21 treated in the above rejection. Therefore, method claim 21 corresponds to method claim 29 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 30, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 30 corresponds to image encoding method 29, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as listed above.
Claim 24-25 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 11,683,532 B2 and Bross et al.; “Versatile Video Coding (Draft 7),” JVET-P2001, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, 16th Meeting: Geneva, CH, October 1-11, 2019 (hereinafter Bross) in view of Chang et al. (US 2021/0076074 A1 with provisional benefit to 62/909,135) (hereinafter Chang).
Regarding claims 24-25, although the claims are not identical, the further limitations would have been obvious for the same reasons of obviousness as set forth in the rejections outlined below with respect to Bross and Chang.
These are nonstatutory double patenting rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 21-22, 24-25 & 29-30 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. Specifically, nowhere in the Specification does the Examiner find any indication that wherein the SPS virtual boundary present flag is restricted to have a value of 1 based on the subpicture present flag indicating that the subpicture related information is included in the SPS. Thus the claims are rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement by introducing new matter.
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 21-22 & 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki (US 2017/0099501 A1) (hereinafter Araki) in view of Bross et al.; “Versatile Video Coding (Draft 7),” JVET-P2001, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, 16th Meeting: Geneva, CH, October 1-11, 2019 (hereinafter Bross).
Regarding claim 21, Araki discloses an image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus [Abstract, method and device for image decoding], the method comprising:
obtaining image information including residual information through a bitstream [Paragraph [0084]-[0089], accumulation buffer receives transmitted encoding data that includes residual data];
generating reconstructed samples of a current picture based on the residual information [Paragraph [0089]-[0090], Computation unit 115 adds difference image (residual information) and prediction image to obtain reconstructed image containing reconstructed samples]; and
generating modified reconstructed samples based on an in-loop filtering process for the reconstructed samples [Paragraph [0090]-[0093], Loop filter 116 generates decoded image as modified reconstructed samples by performing loop filter upon reconstructed image as in-loop filtering process],
wherein the image information includes a sequence parameter set (SPS) and a picture header [Paragraph [0070], [0081] & [0100]-[0105], bitstream including SPS and slice header].
However, Araki does not explicitly disclose wherein the SPS includes a subpicture present flag indicating whether subpicture related information is included in the SPS, wherein the subpicture related information includes information on a number of subpictures and information on positions of the subpictures, wherein when the subpicture present flag indicates that the subpicture related information is included in the SPS, information on positions of virtual boundaries is restricted not to be included in the picture header, wherein the SPS includes an SPS virtual boundary present flag related to whether the SPS includes the information on the positions of the virtual boundaries. and wherein the SPS virtual boundary present flag is restricted to have a value of 1 based on the subpicture present flag indicating that the subpicture related information is included in the SPS.
Bross teaches wherein the SPS includes a subpicture present flag indicating whether subpicture related information is included in the SPS [Section 7.3.2.3 Sequence parameter set RBSP syntax, subpics_present_flag, wherein subpics_present_flag equal to 1 specifies that subpicture parameters are present in the SPS RBSP syntax], wherein the subpicture related information includes information on a number of subpictures and information on positions of the subpictures [Section 7.3.2.3 & Section 7.4.3.3, Sequence parameter set RBSP syntax, sps_num_subpics_minus1 specifies the number of subpictures, and subpic _ctu_top_left_x[ i ] specifies horizontal position of top left CTU of i-th subpicture in unit of CtbSizeY, and subpic_ctu_top_left_y[ i ] specifies vertical position of top left CTU of i-th subpicture in unit of CtbSizeY], wherein when the subpicture present flag indicates that the subpicture related information is included in the SPS, information on positions of virtual boundaries is restricted not to be included in the picture header [Section 7.3.2.3 Sequence parameter set RBSP syntax, Section 7.3.2.6 Picture header RBSP syntax, wherein subpics_present_flag, equal to 1 leads to sps_loop_filter_across_virtual _boundaries_disabled_present_flag being true and restricting syntax sps_num_ver/hor _virtual_boundaries as number of virtual boundaries and sps_virtual_boundaries _pos(x/y)[i] as info on positions of virtual boundaries to being in SPS, and resulting in if( !sps_loop_filter_across_virtual _boundaries_disabled_present_flag ) within the Picture header to not include information ph_virtual_boundaries_pos_x/y[i]], wherein the SPS includes an SPS virtual boundary present flag related to whether the SPS includes the information on the positions of the virtual boundaries, and wherein the SPS virtual boundary present flag is restricted to have a value of 1 based on the subpicture present flag indicating that the subpicture related information is included in the SPS [Section 7.3.2.3 Sequence parameter set RBSP syntax, Section 7.3.2.6 Picture header RBSP syntax, wherein subpics_present_flag, equal to 1 leads to sps_loop_filter_across_virtual _boundaries_disabled_present_flag as claimed SPS virtual boundary present flag, restricted to or being true(1) and restricting syntax sps_num_ver/hor _virtual_boundaries as number of virtual boundaries and sps_virtual_boundaries _pos(x/y)[i] as info on positions of virtual boundaries to being in SPS].
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 Araki to integrate subpicture signaling as described in Bross as above, to specify a video coding technology with a compression capability that is substantially beyond that of the prior generations of such standards, and the second is for this technology to be highly versatile for effective use in a broadened range of applications (Bross, Abstract).
Regarding claim 22, Araki and Bross disclose the image decoding method of claim 21, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Bross teaches wherein the information on the positions of the virtual boundaries comprises information on positions of vertical virtual boundaries and information on positions of horizontal virtual boundaries [Section 7.3.2.3 Sequence parameter set RBSP syntax, SPS including sps_num_ver/hor _virtual_boundaries as number of virtual boundaries and sps_virtual_boundaries _pos(x/y)[i] as info on positions of virtual 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 Araki to integrate subpicture signaling as described in Bross as above, to specify a video coding technology with a compression capability that is substantially beyond that of the prior generations of such standards, and the second is for this technology to be highly versatile for effective use in a broadened range of applications (Bross, Abstract).
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 is drawn to an image encoding method having limitations similar to the image decoding method of using the same as claimed in claim 21 treated in the above rejection. Therefore, method claim 21 corresponds to method claim 29 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Furthermore, Araki discloses of an image encoding method [Paragraph [0241], multi-view image encoding scheme].
Regarding claim 30, method claim 30 corresponds to image encoding method 29, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as listed above.
Furthermore, Araki disclose generating a bitstream; and transmitting the data including the bitstream [Paragraph [0245], Fig. 28, multiplexing unit 603 multiplexes the base view image encoded stream generated by the encoding unit 601 and the non-base view image encoded stream generated by the encoding unit 602 to generate a multi-view image encoded stream]
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki (US 2017/0099501 A1) (hereinafter Araki) and Bross et al.; “Versatile Video Coding (Draft 7),” JVET-P2001, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, 16th Meeting: Geneva, CH, October 1-11, 2019 (hereinafter Bross) in view of Chang et al. (US 2021/0076074 A1 with provisional benefit to 62/909,135) (hereinafter Chang).
Regarding claim 24, Araki and Bross disclose the image decoding method of claim 21, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
However neither Araki nor Bross teach or suggest the particulars of claim 24.
Chang teaches wherein the current picture comprises the subpictures and tiles, and wherein coding tree units (CTUs) in one tile belong to a same subpicture [Paragraph [0044]-[0047] & [0139]-[0144], supported in Paragraph [0038]-[0040] & [0065]-[0075] in provisional, CTUs belong to a brick that is a row of CTUs within a tile, and tiles are within a subpicture/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 Araki to integrate subpicture signaling as described in Chang as above, to simplify coder design and avoid inconsistencies that may lead to incorrect encoding or incorrect decoding (Chang, Paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 25, Araki and Bross disclose the image decoding method of claim 21, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
However neither Araki nor Bross teach or suggest the particulars of claim 25.
Chang teaches wherein the current picture comprises the subpictures and tiles, and wherein coding tree units (CTUs) in one subpicture belong to a same tile [Paragraph [0044]-[0047] & [0139]-[0144], supported in Paragraph [0038]-[0040] & [0065]-[0075] in provisional, CTUs belong to a brick that is a row of CTUs that is within a tile, and tiles are within a subpicture/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 Araki to integrate subpicture signaling as described in Chang as above, to simplify coder design and avoid inconsistencies that may lead to incorrect encoding or incorrect decoding (Chang, Paragraph [0021]).
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