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 September 16, 2025.
Claims 1, 3-11 & 13-22 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 15 & 18 are amended.
Claims 2 & 12 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 12/19/2025, page 12-21, regarding the rejection of claim 1, and similarly claims 6, 11 & 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant, in pg. 21, asserts that Lim does not teach or suggest, “receiving, from the receiver apparatus, an indication of a highest profile, level and tier supported by the receiver apparatus; and generating an encoded bitstream comprising said subpictures based, at least partially, on the highest profile, level and tier supported by the receiver apparatus.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and deems this point moot because it is the combination of Thomas and Lim that teaches or suggests the above claim limitations.
Thomas, in Paragraphs [0033]-[0036], [0041]-[0043], [0071]-[0076], [0098]-[0122], [0138]-[0141], discloses of the client, reading on the claimed receiver apparatus, interfaces with the content provider, reading as the claimed sender apparatus. However, Thomas does not explicitly disclose of the content provider receiving an indication of a highest profile, level and tier supported by the receiver apparatus; and generating an encoded bitstream comprising said subpictures based, at least partially, on the highest profile, level and tier supported by the receiver apparatus,” and thus the Examiner relies upon Lim to modify and teach the client and content provider in Thomas. Lim, in Paragraph [0077]-[0082], [0039]-[0043], [0046], [0099], [0108], and [0119], teaches of PTL parameters received from the decoder, analogized as the client in Thomas and reading upon the claimed receiver apparatus, that are received and utilized by the BEAMer, analogized as the content provider in Thomas and reading as the claimed sender apparatus, to generate one or more extracted bitstreams that conform with the PTL parameters of the decoder. Thus the one or more extracted bitstreams are generated based on the PTL parameters from the decoder to be provided as content to the client/decoder. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of a sender sending PTL parameters for an appropriate bitstream that conforms with the capacity of the sender in Lim would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Lim to the teachings of Thomas would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data transfer features into similar systems. Further, applying PTL parameters to Thomas with content providing servers accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for proper data content compression and transfer to clients/decoders that conform with a respective client’s/decoder’s capacity and specifications to fully utilize their bandwidth and processing capabilities to provide realistic or quality video output.
Furthermore, in response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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).
Next, the Applicant asserts in pg. 20 that Lim does not disclose or suggest that a sender apparatus receives parameters regarding the capacity of the decoder or PTL parameters of the decoder from a receiver apparatus. Rather, this information is provided by one part of a receiver apparatus, namely the decoder, to another part of the receiver apparatus, namely the BEAMer. Lim does not disclose or suggest that PTL parameters are received by the server, nor that the server generates an encoded bitstream comprising subpictures based on the PTL parameters.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously stated above, it is the combination of Thomas and Lim that teaches or suggests that a sender apparatus receives parameters regarding the capacity of the decoder or PTL parameters of the decoder from a receiver apparatus, or that PTL parameters are received by the server, nor that the server generates an encoded bitstream comprising subpictures based on the PTL parameters. Thomas, in Paragraphs [0033]-[0036], [0041]-[0043], [0071]-[0076], [0098]-[0122], [0138]-[0141], discloses of the client, reading on the claimed receiver apparatus, interfaces with the content provider, reading as the claimed sender apparatus. However, Thomas does not explicitly disclose of the content provider receiving an indication of a highest profile, level and tier supported by the receiver apparatus; and generating an encoded bitstream comprising said subpictures based, at least partially, on the highest profile, level and tier supported by the receiver apparatus,” and thus the Examiner relies upon Lim to modify and teach the client and content provider in Thomas. Lim, in Paragraph [0077]-[0082], [0039]-[0043], [0046], [0099], [0108], and [0119], teaches of PTL parameters received from the decoder, analogized as the client in Thomas and reading upon the claimed receiver apparatus, that are received and utilized by the BEAMer, analogized as the content provider in Thomas and reading as the claimed sender apparatus, to generate one or more extracted bitstreams that conform with the PTL parameters of the decoder. Thus the one or more extracted bitstreams are generated based on the PTL parameters from the decoder to be provided as content to the client/decoder. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of a sender sending PTL parameters for an appropriate bitstream that conforms with the capacity of the sender in Lim would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Lim to the teachings of Thomas would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data transfer features into similar systems. Further, applying PTL parameters to Thomas with content providing servers accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for proper data content compression and transfer to clients/decoders that conform with a respective client’s/decoder’s capacity and specifications to fully utilize their bandwidth and processing capabilities to provide realistic or quality video output. Again, in response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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).
The Applicant then asserts that Lim does not disclose or suggest that the PTL parameters comprise an indication of a highest profile, level and tier supported by a receiver apparatus.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lim in Paragraph [0077]-[0082], and [0039]-[0043], [0046], [0099], [0108], and [0119], discusses that parameters are received, from a decoder, regarding a capacity of the decoder that decodes the received bitstream and the independently coded regions to extract and merge into the merged bitstream are selected based on the parameters to manage fullness of the decoder. In some embodiments, information is received, from a decoder, about PTL parameters of the decoder and the one or more extracted bitstreams are generated to conform to the PTL parameters of the decoder. Since the PTL parameters sent to the BEAMer or content provider are the only PTL parameters sent, the Examiner reads these as the PTL parameters that are indicative of the “highest” profile, level, and tier. Furthermore the claim makes no mention of how a claimed “highest” profile, level, and tier is determined that differentiates from the PTL parameters in Lim. Therefore the PTL parameters in Lim read as the claimed the highest profile, level, and tier.
Lastly, the Applicant asserts that there is no motivation to cause parameters that are shared within a device comprising a decoder and a BEAMer to be received by a sender apparatus.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, 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 apparatus disclosed by Thomas to integrate and utilize PTL parameters as described in Lim as above, to decode the dynamically changing portion of an encoded video bitstream for 360-degree video and the point cloud objects for more efficient processing than decoding the entire 360-dgree video and all points of the point cloud objects and rendering some of the points of the point cloud objects (Lim, Paragraph [0070]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of a sender sending PTL parameters for an appropriate bitstream that conforms with the capacity of the sender in Lim would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Lim to the teachings of Thomas would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data transfer features into similar systems. Further, applying PTL parameters to Thomas with content providing servers accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for proper data content compression and transfer to clients/decoders that conform with a respective client’s/decoder’s capacity and specifications to fully utilize their bandwidth and processing capabilities to provide realistic or quality video output.
Therefore the rejection of claim 1, and similarly claims 6, 11 & 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained.
Applicant’s remarks filed 12/19/2025, pg. 21 with respect to overcoming the rejection of claims 3-4, 7-10, 13-14 & 16-20 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant relies on the patentability of the claims from which this claim depends to traverse the rejection without prejudice to any further basis for patentability of these claims based on the additional elements recited.
The Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant because the combination of Thomas, Wang, Boyce, and Lim disclose claims 1, 6, 11 & 15, as outlined below. Thus, dependent claims 3-4, 7-10, 13-14 & 16-20 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, 5-7, 10-11, 15-16 & 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US 2017/0155912 A1) (hereinafter Thomas) in view of Wang et al. (WO 2021/035225 A1) (hereinafter Wang), further in view of Boyce et al. (WO 2020/263817 A1) (hereinafter Boyce), and further in view of Lim (US 2020/0366962 A1) (hereinafter Lim).
Regarding claim 1, Thomas discloses a sender apparatus [Paragraph [0145], media server, as sender apparatus] comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor [Paragraph [0148]-[0152], Fig. 10, Data processing system including one processor 1002 executing program code from memory elements 1004 being memory], cause the sender apparatus at least to:
transmit, to a receiver apparatus, an indication of a number of subpictures the sender apparatus supports in an encoded image data [Paragraph [0033]-[0036], [0041]-[0043], [0071]-[0076], [0098]-[0122], [0138]-[0141], Figs. 4-5, 8, Step 804, content provider transmits spatial manifest file (SMF) to client as receiver apparatus, wherein SMF comprises data structure comprising spatial segments comprising metadata that includes identifiers, as indication, of first, second, and third MPD video elements, wherein each video element associated with spatial segment identifiers of 2x4 HEVC tiles, 2x4 HEVC tiles, and 2x2 HEVC tiles, respectively];
receive, from the receiver apparatus, as a response to the indication of the number of subpictures the sender apparatus supports in the encoded image data, an indication of a preferred number of subpictures allowed in the encoded image data; determine a number of subpictures to include in the encoded image data based, at least partially, on the indication of the preferred number of subpictures allowed in the encoded image data [Paragraph [0033]-[0036], [0041]-[0043], [0071]-[0076], [0098]-[0122], [0138]-[0141], Figs. 4-5, 8, step 808, wherein DASH client as receiver apparatus, uses information in MPD to request video data, using the metadata of the HEVC-tiled video streams defined in SMF in order allow a client to select a particular ROI (e.g. a spatial segment) and to configure the decoder before the HEVC-tiled video data are received by the client. This metadata may include for example: information for determining the number and/or size of HEVC-tiles in the selected spatial segment using (e.g., the number of HEVC-tiles represented as a SubRepresentation), as the preferred number of subpictures allowed in encoded image data];
partition a bitstream representing an image data into subpictures, an amount of which corresponds to the determined number of subpictures [Paragraph [0033]-[0036], [0043], [0059]-[0063], [0071]-[0076], [0086]-[0090], [0098]-[0122], [0138]-[0141] & [0118], The HEVC encoder may be configured to divide video frames 100 in the HEVC stream in so-called HEVC tiles 102, wherein a HEVC tile is a rectangular area defined by a particular grouping of CTUs, and when using a HAS protocol, the spatially divided, independently decodable video data (i.e. the video data of the spatial segments) may be temporally divided in so-called temporal segments accordingly with client’s desired video data request, as in accordance with desired number of HEVC tiles or subset of HEVC tiles (ROI)];
generate an encoded bitstream comprising said subpictures [Paragraph [0101], the video frames of the source file may be encoded into a HEVC-tiled video file or stream comprising one or more (independently) decodable Spatial Segments];
deliver the encoded bitstream to the receiver apparatus [Paragraph [0064] & [0147], the video data of all HEVC-tiles should be transmitted to the client device].
However, Thomas does not explicitly disclose the sender apparatus to deliver required parameter sets for said subpictures to said receiver apparatus.
Wang teaches the sender apparatus to deliver required parameter sets for said subpictures to said receiver apparatus [Paragraph [0089] & [00115]-[00116], the bitstream, which includes a sequence parameter set and picture parameter sets containing subpicture mappings, is transmitted toward a decoder].
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 apparatus disclosed by Thomas to integrate and utilize parameter sets as described in Wang as above, to ensure efficient signaling of subpicture identifiers (IDs) even when the subpicture IDs change within the coded video sequence (CVS) in application scenarios involving both sub-bitstream extraction and sub-bitstream merging. The efficient signaling is accomplished by setting flags in the sequence parameter set (SPS) or the picture parameter set (SPS) to indicate whether subpicture IDS in the CVS may change and, if so, where the subpicture IDs are located. This reduces redundancy and increases coding efficiency (Wang, Paragraph [0003]-[0006]).
However, Thomas and Wang do not explicitly disclose wherein the number of subpictures the sender apparatus supports in the encoded image data is greater than the preferred number of subpictures allowed in the encoded image data.
Boyce teaches wherein the number of subpictures the sender apparatus supports in the encoded image data is greater than the preferred number of subpictures allowed in the encoded image data [Pgs. 6-7, ll. 7-2, In some embodiments of the syntax, the number of sub-pictures is limited to 256, with the highest value reserved to enable an extension if support for more sub-pictures is desired, further for 360 video coding using cube maps, each of the 6 cube faces can be split into 4 regions, to make 24 sub-pictures (144 sub-pictures)].
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 apparatus disclosed by Thomas to integrate and utilize syntax as described in Boyce as above, to increase enable an extension for support if more sub-pictures are desired (Boyce, Pg. 2 ll. 7-8).
Lastly, Thomas, Wang, and Boyce do not explicitly disclose of receive, from the receiver apparatus, an indication of a highest profile, level, and tier supported by the receiver apparatus; and generate an encoded bitstream comprising said subpictures based, at least partially, on the highest profile, level, and tier supported by the receiver apparatus.
Lim teaches of receive, from the receiver apparatus, an indication of a highest profile, level, and tier supported by the receiver apparatus; and generate an encoded bitstream comprising said subpictures based, at least partially, on the highest profile, level, and tier supported by the receiver apparatus [Paragraph [0077]-[0082], and [0039]-[0043], [0046], [0099], [0108], and [0119], parameters are received, from a decoder, regarding a capacity of the decoder that decodes the received bitstream and the independently coded regions to extract and merge into the merged bitstream are selected based on the parameters to manage fullness of the decoder. In some embodiments, information is received, from a decoder, about PTL parameters of the decoder and the one or more extracted bitstreams are generated to conform to the PTL parameters of the decoder.].
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 apparatus disclosed by Thomas to integrate and utilize PTL parameters as described in Lim as above, to decode the dynamically changing portion of an encoded video bitstream for 360-degree video and the point cloud objects for more efficient processing than decoding the entire 360-dgree video and all points of the point cloud objects and rendering some of the points of the point cloud objects (Lim, Paragraph [0070]).
Regarding claim 5, Thomas, Wang, Boyce, and Lim disclose the sender apparatus according to claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect the claim.
Furthermore, Wang teaches wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor [Paragraph [00175]-[00177], Fig. 2, the coding module 1070 is implemented as instructions, as computer program code and software, stored in the memory 1060 and executed by the processor 1030], cause the sender apparatus to at least one of: turn loop filtering on across subpicture boundaries; or turn loop filtering off across subpicture boundaries [Paragraph [00105], The filter control analysis component 227 analyzes the reconstructed reference blocks to determine where such filters should be applied and sets corresponding parameters. Such data is forwarded to the header formatting and CABAC component 231 as filter control data for encoding. The in-loop filters component 225 applies such filters based on the filter control data. The filters may include a deblocking filter].
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 apparatus disclosed by Thomas to integrate and utilize parameter sets as described in Wang as above, to ensure efficient signaling of subpicture identifiers (IDs) even when the subpicture IDs change within the coded video sequence (CVS) in application scenarios involving both sub-bitstream extraction and sub-bitstream merging. The efficient signaling is accomplished by setting flags in the sequence parameter set (SPS) or the picture parameter set (SPS) to indicate whether subpicture IDS in the CVS may change and, if so, where the subpicture IDs are located. This reduces redundancy and increases coding efficiency (Wang, Paragraph [0003]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 6, Thomas discloses a receiver apparatus comprising at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor [Paragraph [0148]-[0152], Fig. 10, Client device, as receiver apparatus, containing data processing system including one processor 1002 executing program code from memory elements 1004 being random access memory], cause the receiver apparatus at least to:
receive, from a sender apparatus, an indication of a number of subpictures the sender apparatus supports in an encoded image data; indicate, to the sender apparatus [Paragraph [0033]-[0036], [0041]-[0043], [0071]-[0076], [0098]-[0122], [0138]-[0141], Figs. 4-5, 8, Step 804, content provider transmits spatial manifest file (SMF) to client as receiver apparatus, wherein SMF comprises data structure comprising spatial segments comprising metadata that includes identifiers, as indication, of first, second, and third MPD video elements, wherein each video element associated with spatial segment identifiers of 2x4 HEVC tiles, 2x4 HEVC tiles, and 2x2 HEVC tiles, respectively],
in response to the indication of the number of subpictures the sender apparatus supports in the encoded image data, a preferred number of subpictures allowed in the encoded image data; receive an encoded bitstream comprising more than one subpictures, wherein a number of the more than one subpictures comprises a number based, at least partially, on the preferred number of subpictures allowed in the encoded image data [Paragraph [0033]-[0036], [0043], [0071]-[0076], [0098]-[0122], [0131]-[0141], Fig. 8, Steps 810, 814, 818, wherein CDN as sender, sends desired number of HEVC tiles or subset of HEVC tiles (ROI) as requested from client, encoded via HEVC and received by stream processor];
convert the encoded bitstream into bitstreams corresponding to said more than one subpictures [Paragraph [0078]-[0082], [0114]-[0115] & [0130]-[0141], HEVC decoder extracts separate video tracks, as bitstreams each containing HEVC tiles, wherein spatial segments may be stored as separate track in MPEG stream];
decode said more than one subpictures, from the corresponding bitstreams, at corresponding decoding instances to result in more than one individual pictures [Paragraph [0034], [0064], [0078]-[0082], [0114]-[0115] & [0131]-[0141], HEVC decoder extracts and decodes video tracks each containing HEVC tiles]; and
render the more than one individual pictures as a single picture [Paragraph [0069], [0098]-[0099], [0104], [0146]-[0150], Rendering spatial segments containing HEVC tiles into video image coinciding with ROI].
However, Thomas does not explicitly disclose the receiver apparatus receive required parameter sets for said more than one subpictures.
Wang teaches the receiver apparatus receive required parameter sets for said more than one subpictures [Paragraph [00111]-[00116] & [00150]-[00158], Fig. 4, the decoder receives bitstream 500, containing subpictures and includes a sequence parameter set (SPS) 510, a plurality of picture parameter sets (PPSs) 512].
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 apparatus disclosed by Thomas to integrate and utilize parameter sets as described in Wang as above, to ensure efficient signaling of subpicture identifiers (IDs) even when the subpicture IDs change within the coded video sequence (CVS) in application scenarios involving both sub-bitstream extraction and sub-bitstream merging. The efficient signaling is accomplished by setting flags in the sequence parameter set (SPS) or the picture parameter set (SPS) to indicate whether subpicture IDS in the CVS may change and, if so, where the subpicture IDs are located. This reduces redundancy and increases coding efficiency (Wang, Paragraph [0003]-[0006]).
However, Thomas and Wang do not explicitly disclose wherein the number of subpictures the sender apparatus supports in the encoded image data is greater than the preferred number of subpictures allowed in the encoded image data.
Boyce teaches wherein the number of subpictures the sender apparatus supports in the encoded image data is greater than the preferred number of subpictures allowed in the encoded image data [Pgs. 6-7, ll. 7-2, In some embodiments of the syntax, the number of sub-pictures is limited to 256, with the highest value reserved to enable an extension if support for more sub-pictures is desired, furthermore for 360 video coding using cube maps, each of the 6 cube faces can be split into 4 regions, to make 24 sub-pictures (144 sub-pictures)].
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 apparatus disclosed by Thomas to integrate and utilize syntax as described in Boyce as above, to increase enable an extension for support if more sub-pictures are desired (Boyce, Pg. 2 ll. 7-8).
However, Thomas, Boyce, and Wang do not explicitly disclose transmit, to the sender apparatus, an indication of a highest profile, level, and tier supported by the receiver apparatus; and receive an encoded bitstream, wherein the encoded bitstream is based, at least partially, on the highest profile, level, and tier supported by the receiver apparatus.
Lim teaches to transmit, to the sender apparatus, an indication of a highest profile, level, and tier supported by the receiver apparatus; and receive an encoded bitstream, wherein the encoded bitstream is based, at least partially, on the highest profile, level, and tier supported by the receiver apparatus [Paragraph [0077]-[0082], and [0039]-[0043], [0046], [0099], [0108], and [0119], parameters are received, from a decoder, regarding a capacity of the decoder that decodes the received bitstream and the independently coded regions to extract and merge into the merged bitstream are selected based on the parameters to manage fullness of the decoder. In some embodiments, information is received, from a decoder, about PTL parameters of the decoder and the one or more extracted bitstreams are generated to conform to the PTL parameters of the decoder.].
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 apparatus disclosed by Thomas to integrate and utilize PTL parameters as described in Lim as above, to decode the dynamically changing portion of an encoded video bitstream for 360-degree video and the point cloud objects for more efficient processing than decoding the entire 360-dgree video and all points of the point cloud objects and rendering some of the points of the point cloud objects (Lim, Paragraph [0070]).
Regarding claim 7, Thomas, Wang, Boyce, and Lim disclose the receiver apparatus according to claim 6, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Thomas discloses wherein the preferred number of subpictures comprises a number of subpictures supported by the decoding instances [Paragraph [0033]-[0036], [0043], [0071]-[0076], [0098]-[0122], [0138]-[0141], Fig. 8, Steps 808, 812, 816, wherein CDN as sender, receives request from client as receiver apparatus, wherein request comprises number of HEVC tiles or subset of HEVC tiles (ROI) as desired/preferred indication of a preferred number of subpictures from the original manifest file (SMF) sent to client containing metadata about information of number/size of HEVC tiles in available spatial segments].
Regarding claim 10, Thomas, Wang, Boyce, and Lim disclose the receiver apparatus according to claim 6, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Wang teaches wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor [Paragraph [00175]-[00177], Fig. 2, the decoder is implemented as instructions, as computer program code and software, stored in the memory 1060 and executed by the processor 1030], cause the receiver apparatus to: receive a session parameter set for the more than one subpictures and a combined video sequence in a session negotiation [Paragraph [0079], Sub-picture positions, sizes, and IDs are indicated in the SPS for a CVS, wherein signaling of such subpicture IDs in the SPS is beneficial from session negotiation point of view].
Regarding claims (11, 15-16 & 19), method claims (11, 15-16 & 19) comprises claim limitations that resemble claim limitations of system claims (1, 6-7 & 10), respectively. Method claims (11, 15-16 & 19) therefore correspond to apparatus claims (1, 6-7 & 10), and are rejected for the same reasons obviousness as outlined above.
Regarding claim 20, Thomas, Wang, Boyce, and Lim disclose the method of claim 11, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Thomas discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions stored thereon for perform the method of claim 11 [Paragraph [0148]-[0152], Fig. 10, Data processing system including one processor 1002 executing program code from memory elements 1004 being random access memory].
Regarding claim 21, Thomas, Wang, Boyce, and Lim disclose the method of claim 15, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Thomas discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions stored thereon for perform the method of claim 15 [Paragraph [0148]-[0152], Fig. 10, Data processing system including one processor 1002 executing program code from memory elements 1004 being random access memory].
Claims 3-4, 8-9, 13-14 & 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US 2017/0155912 A1) (hereinafter Thomas), Wang et al. (WO 2021/035225 A1) (hereinafter Wang), Boyce et al. (WO 2020/263817 A1) (hereinafter Boyce), and Lim (US 2020/0366962 A1) (hereinafter Lim) in view of Choi et al. (US 2021/0306670 A1) (hereinafter Choi).
Regarding claim 3, Thomas, Wang, Boyce, and Lim disclose the sender apparatus according to claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
However, Thomas, Wang, Boyce, and Lim do not disclose the particulars of claim 3.
Choi teaches wherein said subpictures comprise at least one of: independent subpictures, or dependent subpictures [Paragraph [0125] & [0226], a sub-picture may be independently coded or coded dependent on another sub-picture].
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 apparatus disclosed by Thomas to integrate independent and dependent sub-pictures as described in Choi as above, to provide indication and identifiers for adaptive resolution changes in sub-picture sizes (Choi, Paragraph [0094]-[0097]).
Regarding claim 4, Thomas, Wang, Boyce, Lim, and Choi disclose the sender apparatus according to claim 3, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Choi teaches wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor [Paragraph [0230], In one example, the one or more processors execute a program that is stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium to perform one or more of the proposed methods], cause the sender apparatus to: indicate whether the required parameter sets are for independent decoding of the independent subpictures [Paragraph [0226], a third flag may indicate that subpictures of the current picture are independent, wherein a flag is 0 or 1, with 1 being independent, and 0 for dependent].
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 apparatus disclosed by Thomas to integrate independent and dependent sub-pictures as described in Choi as above, to provide indication and identifiers for adaptive resolution changes in sub-picture sizes (Choi, Paragraph [0094]-[0097]).
Regarding claim 8, Thomas, Wang, Boyce, and Lim disclose the receiver apparatus according to claim 6, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
However, Thomas, Wang, Boyce, and Lim do not explicitly disclose the particulars of claim 8
Choi teaches wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor [Paragraph [0230], In one example, the one or more processors execute a program that is stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium to perform one or more of the proposed methods], cause the receiver apparatus to: determine whether said more than one subpictures are independent subpictures or dependent subpictures [Paragraph [0226], a third flag may indicate that subpictures of the current picture are independent, wherein a flag is 0 or 1, with 1 being independent, and 0 for dependent].
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 apparatus disclosed by Thomas to integrate independent and dependent sub-pictures as described in Choi as above, to provide indication and identifiers for adaptive resolution changes in sub-picture sizes (Choi, Paragraph [0094]-[0097]).
Regarding claim 9, Thomas, Wang, Boyce, and Lim disclose the receiver apparatus according to claim 6, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
However, Thomas, Wang, Boyce, and Lim do not explicitly disclose the particulars of claim 9
Choi teaches wherein highest profile, level and tier which is supported by respective ones of the decoding instances [Paragraph [0167]-[0171], one or more syntax elements that specify the output layer set to indicate one of more layers to be outputted with or without profile tier level information may be signaled in a high-level syntax structure, e.g. VPS, DPS, SPS, PPS, APS or SEI message].
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 apparatus disclosed by Thomas to integrate independent and dependent sub-pictures as described in Choi as above, to provide indication and identifiers for adaptive resolution changes in sub-picture sizes (Choi, Paragraph [0094]-[0097]).
Regarding claims (13-14 & 17-18), method claims (13-14 & 17-18) comprises claim limitations that resemble claim limitations of system claims (3-4 & 8-9), respectively. Method claims (13-14 & 17-18) therefore correspond to apparatus claims (3-4 & 8-9), and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as outlined above.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US 2017/0155912 A1) (hereinafter Thomas), Wang et al. (WO 2021/035225 A1) (hereinafter Wang), Boyce et al. (WO 2020/263817 A1) (hereinafter Boyce), and Lim (US 2020/0366962 A1) (hereinafter Lim) in view of Wang (US 2022/0103867 A1, with provisional benefit to 63/084,953) (hereinafter Wang2).
Regarding claim 22, Thomas, Wang, Boyce, and Lim disclose the sender apparatus according to claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Thomas discloses of wherein the indication of the preferred number of subpictures allowed in the encoded image data comprises a supplemental enhancement information message [Paragraph [0071], The information defining such tile set may be defined as a SEI message in the MPEG stream].
However, Thomas, Wang, Boyce, and Lim do not explicitly disclose of a scalable nesting supplemental enhancement information message.
Wang2 teaches of a scalable nesting supplemental enhancement information message [Paragraph [0141]-[0143], Table 1, scalable nesting SEI message, mechanism to associate SEI messages with specific sets of subpictures].
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 apparatus disclosed by Thomas to integrate scalable nesting SEI messages as described in Wang2 as above, to assist in processes related to decoding, display or other purposes (Wang2, Paragraph [0130]).
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.
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