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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Given the large number of references submitted with the Information Disclosure Statements in this case, without citation to relevant portions or explanation of relevance to the present claims, only a cursory consideration has been afforded to this disclosure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Generally, Examiner did not find evidence on the record that the amendments lead to unexpected results as far as video coding efficiency. The amendments seem to provide coding features which were already available in VVC in a substantively similar form. It is not clear that the claims apply a different formatting from the VVC standard, and also it is not clear that a difference in formatting of the output without a difference in the underlying video coding methodology would be sufficient for patentability under section 103.
Applicant may consider if the advantages that Applicant expects are linked to a particular type of a video signal or a processing architecture, and elaborate on such constraints in the claims.
Regarding the newly amended language, Applicant argues: “Thus, claim 1 requires performing a conversion between a video and a bitstream having a particular format. … ”
Applicant argues: “On page 11, the Office Action cites MFA as purportedly disclosing the claimed length of identifiers of subpictures. The Applicant is of course familiar with its admitted prior art, and notes that MFA mentions sps_subpic_id[ i ], pps_subpic_id[ i ], and slice_subpic_id, as well as the corresponding sps_subpic_id_len_minusl, pps_subpic_id_len_minusl, and length of slice_subpic_id, respectively. However, MFA does not disclose or suggest that sps_subpic_id[ i ], pps_subpic_id[ i ], and slice_subpic_id all adopt the same length.”
First, Examiner notes that the claim does not state “sps_subpic_id[ i ], pps_subpic_id[ i ], and slice_subpic_id all adopt the same length,” and it does not appear to be part of the invention in the Specification. Second, prior art, in describing the VVC standard, teaches that the length of slice subpic id, in bits, is derived based on the length in sin the SPS or the PPS. This corresponds to the claimed “wherein the length corresponds to a number of bits used to represent the first subpicture identifier syntax element …” See reasons for rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Examiner has previously withdrawn the rejection of Claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 in response to Applicant’s withdrawal of the claims from consideration.
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, 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.
Changes to the dimensions of prior art structures are considered obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular changes would produce non-obvious results. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) (the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device).
While Applicant is allowed to be his own lexicographer in describing claim structures, Examiner must reject the claim based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed elements and not based on the presence of Applicant’s exact phrasing. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 904.01(a).
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, 12, 15-16, 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant admitted prior art in the Specification (“AAPA”) in view of “Overview of HEVC High-Level Syntax and Reference Picture Management,” IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS FOR VIDEO TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 22, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2012 (“HEVC Overview”) and in view of US 20160261868 to Chien “Chien.”
Note that Specification Paragraph 30 refers to HEVC and VVC prior art standards that serve the bases for the proposed invention. HEVC Overview and Chien references are also cited as explaining relevant features of the HEVC with which the claims are concerned.
Regarding Claim 1: “A method of video processing, comprising:
performing a conversion between a video comprising a plurality of pictures and a bitstream of the video that has a particular format, (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, this element includes encoding or decoding bitstreams formatted according to the industry video coding standards. See original Claims 8-9. Prior art describes this under the “H.264/MPEG-4 Advanced Video Coding (AVC) and H.265/HEVC standards” AAPA, Specification, Paragraph 30. Also note that “"video coding" or "coding" may refer generically to video encoding and video decoding.” Chien, Paragraphs 33, 34.)
wherein a field indicating a number of sub pictures in each picture of a video sequence is conditionally signaled in a sequence parameter set (SPS) of the bitstream, (First, note that since this signaling is indicated to be conditional without a present condition, it is an optional feature that does not limit the claim to performing a particular step. Cumulatively note that prior art teaches “the latest VVC draft text, information of subpictures, includes sub picture layout (i.e., the number of subpictures for each picture and the position and size of each picture) and other sequence-level subpicture information, is signaled in the SPS” AAPA, Specification, Paragraphs 50 and Table 7.3.2.3.
Note that all signals in headers such as an SPS are conditionally signaled based on other signals, video content, and coding parameters: “In H.264/AVC as well as in HEVC, SPSs contain information which applies to all slices of a coded video sequence.” As a pertinent example, conditions can be set by “enabling flags for certain tools within a profile, and associated coding tool parameters in case the tool is enabled;” HEVC Overview, Page 1861, Column 1, first paragraph.)
wherein the field is sps_num_subpics_minus1, (Examiner notes that Applicant’s choice for a name of the field does not clearly distinguish the claimed method over the prior art. Cumulatively, The “sps_num_subpics_minus1 … ue(v)” field is disclosed as nomenclature used in a prior art VVC standard in AAPA, Table 7.3.2.3. Page 23 of the Specification indicates that this field has not been modified from the original standard. Cumulatively, “The HEVC working draft defines 'ue(v)' coded syntax elements as unsigned integer Exp-Golomb-coded syntax elements with the left bit first.” Chien, Paragraph 32.)
wherein the field is an unsigned integer 0-th order exponential Golomb (Exp-Golomb) coded syntax element with a left bit first,” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, “an unsigned integer 0-th order exponential Golomb (Exp-Golomb) coded syntax” has the property of “a bitwidth of the field comprises a variable number of bits.”
The clamed element describes the “sps_num_subpics_minus1 … ue(v)” field as used in the original Claim 2 and Specification, First embodiment, Table 7.3.2.3 is also disclosed as a feature of a prior art VVC in AAPA, Table 7.3.2.3. Page 23 of the Specification indicates that this field has not been modified from the original standard. Cumulatively, “The HEVC working draft defines 'ue(v)' coded syntax elements as unsigned integer Exp-Golomb-coded syntax elements with the left bit first.” Chien, Paragraph 32.)
wherein a second syntax element, which indicates the number of the sub pictures in each picture referring to a picture parameter set (PPS), is conditionally included in the PPS based on a value of a first syntax element,” (First, note that since this signaling is indicated to be conditional without a present condition, it is an optional feature that does not limit the claim to performing a particular step. Cumulatively note that prior art teaches examples as “if (!no_pic_partition_flag) { … pps_log2_ctu_size_minus5 … num _exp_ tile_ columns_ minus1 … num _exp_ tile_ rows_ minus1 … num_slices_in_pic_minus1 … single_slice_per_subpic_flag,” syntax elements which indicate a number of CTU partitions [sub-pictures], number of tile partitions [also sub-pictures] and a number of slice partitions [also sub-pictures] in the picture respectively. See AAPA, Specification, Page 13. This indicates that subpictures in general, such as slices and tiles, are conventionally indicated in this section. See treatment of the specific “pps_num_subpics_minus1” field below.)
wherein the second syntax element is pps_num_subpics_minus1, and (Note that the second syntax elements are only present “if( !no_pic_partition_flag )” in AAPA, Specification, Page 13. Also, “When no_pic_partition_ flag is equal to 1, the value of nurn_slices_in_pic_minus1 is inferred to be equal to 0,” which means that “sps_num_subpics_minus1” is also inferred to be zero since there are no slices to compose a subpicture. AAPA, Specification, Pages 15, 45. In this case slices are subpictures (one or more per picture) and exemplify a “subpic,” thus the “nurn_slices_in_pic_minus1” indicates the number of subpictures in each picture.
Although the syntax name is not identical, it identifies a substantively similar type of data in PPS. In fact, “When single_slice_per_subpic_flag is equal to 1, num_slices_in_pic_minus1 is inferred to be equal to sps_num_subpics_minus1,” they actually code identical data. See, Specification, Page 15, second to last paragraph.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been known or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to code a variable substantively identical to pps_num_subpics_minus1 conditionally on no_pic_partition_flag, in uses where “subpic” represents a picture partition such as a slice.
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. If one wishes to define “subpic” as a “pic_partition” like a slice, then a person of skill in the art would naturally expect (based on the existing slice syntax) that it can be controlled by a “no_pic_partition_flag.” )
wherein it is a requirement of bitstream conformance that a value of the second syntax element is equal to the field, (First note that “a requirement of bitstream conformance” does not limit the claimed method to performing a particular step, and thus the method reads on the prior art cited for the rest of the claim. Cumulatively, since the value of “sps_num_subpics_minus1” is defined in the claim as “a number of subpictures in each picture of a video sequence” it is by definition equal to “a number of subpictures in each picture” which is “pps num subpics minus 1.” Finally, AAPA explicitly states: “It is a requirement of bitstream conformance that the value of pps_num_subpic_minusl shall be equal to sps_num_subpics_minus1.” In Specification, Page 14 referring to “the latest VVC draft text” in Paragraph 53.)
wherein the particular format specifies that each of identifier variables of one or more subpictures of the picture is derived based on a first subpicture identifier syntax element in the SPS referred to by the picture or a second subpicture identifier syntax element in the PPS referred to by the picture.” (First note that “wherein the particular format specifies” appears to state an intended result (content of the bitstream) but does not limit the claimed method to performing a particular step or providing particular data for processing, and thus the method reads on the prior art cited for the rest of the claim.
Cumulatively, the “first subpicture identifier syntax element” or the “second subpicture identifier syntax element” appears to be described in the Specificaiton as slice_subpic_id. in Specification, Page 17, last paragraph. However, this portion of the Specification is a reference to AAPA, “the latest VVC draft text” stating in Paragraph 53 and before Applicant’s solution is introduced in Paragraph 54 on page 19. Further, Specification, Page 17, last paragraph provides an example of the claim feature: “Otherwise, if [first] pps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag is equal to 1, the length of slice_subpic_id is equal to pps_subpic_id_len_minusl + 1,” which is in reference to the first element in the SPS and “Otherwise, the length of slice subpic id is equal to Ceil( Log2 ( sps num subpics minusl + 1 ) )” which is in reference to the second variable in the PPS. This format rule appears to be a feature of VVC.)
“wherein the particular format further specifies that signaling a length of identifiers of subpictures in the SPS of the bitstream is based on a value of a third syntax element in the SPS indicative of subpicture information is present, and independent of a value of a fourth syntax element in the SPS indicative of whether the identifiers are explicitly signaled, and (As noted above, “wherein the particular format specifies” appears to state an intended result but does not limit the claimed method to performing a particular step Cumulatively, the claimed feature appears to be part of AAPA, “the latest VVC draft text” stating in Paragraph 53 and before Applicant’s solution is introduced in Paragraph 54 on page 19. Specification, Page 17, last paragraph provides an example of the claim feature: “If sps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag is equal to 1, the length of slice_subpic_id is equal to sps_subpic_id_len_minus1 + 1.” This format rule appears to be a feature of VVC.)
wherein the length corresponds to a number of bits used to represent the first subpicture identifier syntax element indicating a subpicture identifier in the SPS, the second subpicture identifier syntax element indicating a subpicture identifier in the PPS if present, and a fifth syntax element indicating a subpicture identifier in a slice header if present.” (This feature appears to be part of AAPA, “the latest VVC draft text” stating in Paragraph 53 on page 10 and before Applicant’s solution is introduced in Paragraph 54 on page 19. Specification, Paragraph 53, on Page 17, last paragraph provides an example of the claim feature: “The length of slice subpic id, in bits, is derived as follows: If sps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag is equal to 1, the length of slice_subpic_id is equal to sps_subpic_id_len_minus1 + 1.” “sps_subpic_id_len_minus1 plus 1 specifies the number of bits used to represent the syntax element sps_subpic_id[i] … Otherwise, if pps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag is equal to 1, the length of slice_subpic_id is equal to pps_subpic_id_len_minusl + 1.” AAPA, Page 17 last paragraph and Page 12, second to last paragraph. Thus the length corresponds to the number of bits used to represent identifiers at different levels including SPS, PPS, and slice. This format rule appears to be a feature of VVC.)
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 supplement the teachings of HEVC and VVC standards in AAPA with the details of HEVC operation in HEVC Overview and Chien, in order to understand the pertinent parts of the HEVC and VVC standards.
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 3: “The method of claim 1, wherein when the field is not signaled, a value of the field is inferred to be equal to 0.” (“The SPS, PPS, and slice header syntax and semantics in the latest VVC draft text that are most relevant to the inventions herein are as follows. … sps_num_subpics_minus1 plus 1 specifies the number of subpictures. … When not present, the value of sps_num_subpics_minus1 is inferred to be equal to 0.” AAPA, Specification, Paragraph 53 and Page 11.)
Regarding Claim 6: “The method of claim 1, wherein the second syntax element is omitted in response to the value of the first syntax element indicating that no picture partitioning is applied to each picture referring to the PPS.” (Note that the second syntax elements are only present “if( !no_pic_partition_flag )” in AAPA, Specification, Page 13. Also, “When no pie partition_ flag is equal to 1, the value of nurn_slices_in_pic_minusl is inferred to be equal to 0.” AAPA, Specification, Page 15.)
Regarding Claim 8: “The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion comprises decoding the video from the bitstream.” (“"video coding" or "coding" may refer generically to video encoding and video decoding.” Chien, Paragraphs 33, 34. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 9: “The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion comprises encoding the video into the bitstream.” (“"video coding" or "coding" may refer generically to video encoding and video decoding.” Chien, Paragraphs 33, 34. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Claim 10, “An apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to: …” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, and because prior art teaches: “The video encoder 20 and the video decoder 30 each can be implemented as any of a variety of suitable encoder circuitry, such as one or more microprocessors, digital signal processors (DSPs), … When the methods 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 to perform the methods of this disclosure” Chien, Paragraph 42 and statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Claim 12 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 2 in view of the Claim 10 rejection.
Claim 15, “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to:,” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 10.
Claim 16 is rejected for reasons stated for Claims 2-3 in view of the Claim 15 rejection.
Regarding Claim 21: “The method of claim 1, wherein a bitwidth of the field comprises a variable number of bits and is based on a maximum value of the number of subpictures, and wherein the maximum value of the number of subpictures is greater than 256.” (As cited above, recitation of relative dimensions are considered obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular changes would produce non-obvious results.
In this case, according to the Applicant, “The existing designs for signaling of subpictures, tiles, and slices in VVC have the following problems: 1) The coding of sps_num_subpics_minus1 is u(8), which disallows more than 256 subpictures per picture. … To solve the first problem, change the coding of sps_num_subpics_minus1 from u(8) to ue(v), to enable more than 256 subpictures per picture” Specification, Paragraphs 54, 56.
In reviewing the AAPA, Table 7.3.2.3 (on pages 10-11), AAPA can represent a variable by selecting from various numerical notations such as u(1), u(8), u(v), ue(v), each having known properties. The selection is based on an assumption that the desired range of each variable can be represented by a particular fixed number of bits or by a variable bit notation; there does not appear to be a technical problem in the art that prevents a larger number from being used: In fact, Chien, teaches numbering pictures in an SPS, (or PPS, or VPS) using the ue(v) format. Chien, Paragraph 32.
Applicant desires to represent a bigger number in a prior art VVC variable designating a number of subpictures, so Applicant selects a format that is available in VVC and used in Chien and HEVC for representing bigger numbers of pictures. This claim selects a solution prescribed by prior art to achieve known and predictable results: that using a ue(v) notation allows representation of numbers larger than 256 (and smaller than 256), to be used with the existing VVC methods. Therefore, the choice of using a ue(v) format to number subpictures in an SPS is obvious over the cited prior art.)
Regarding Claim 22: “The method of claim 1, wherein the first syntax element, which indicates whether each picture referring to the PPS can be partitioned, is included in the PPS of the bitstream before a set of syntax elements, in the PPS, indicative of identifiers of subpictures in the each picture, wherein the first syntax element is no_pic_partition_flag.” (“The SPS, PPS, and slice header syntax and semantics in the latest VVC draft text that are most relevant to the inventions herein are as follows. … no_pic_partition_flag equal to 1 specifies that no picture partitioning applied to each picture referring to the PPS” AAPA, Specification, Paragraph 53 and Page 14. Further note that this flag is a prerequisite to [appears before the] syntax elements identifying the sub-pictures: “if (!no_pic_partition_flag) { … pps_log2_ctu_size_minus5 … num _exp_ tile_ columns_ minus1 … num _exp_ tile_ rows_ minus1 … num_slices_in_pic_minus1 … single_slice_per_subpic_flag,” syntax elements which indicate a number of CTU partitions [sub-pictures], number of tile partitions [also sub-pictures] and a number of slice partitions [also sub-pictures] in the picture respectively. See AAPA, Specification, Page 13. See definition of a subpicture as a slice in Specification Paragraph 45 and Fig. 4.)
Regarding Claim 23: “The method of claim 1, wherein, when a value of a flag specifies that a subpicture information is present for the video sequence, the field is signaled in the SPS.” (“the latest VVC draft text that are most relevant to the inventions herein are as follows. … if( subpics pre sent_ flag) { … sps_num_subpics_minus1 …” AAPA, Specification, Paragraph 53 and Table 7.3.2.3. Further, in HEVC and thus VVC, it is conventional to use “enabling flags for certain tools within a profile, and associated coding tool parameters in case the tool is enabled;” HEVC Overview, Page 1861, Column 1, first paragraph. See statement of motivation below.)
Claim 24 is rejected for the reasons indicated for Claim 21 in view of the Claim 10 rejection.
Claim 25 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 22 in view of the Claim 10 rejection.
Claim 26 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 23 in view of the Claim 10 rejection.
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 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