DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims 1-10 and 12 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The rejections are necessitated due to claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0319299) in view of WANG et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0199203 hereinafter WANG2).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Wang teaches an image processing apparatus/method comprising: circuitry [fig. 9]; and memory coupled to the circuitry, wherein, in operation, the circuitry [fig. 9]: derives a size of a subpicture included in a picture using a size of the picture, a position/location of the subpicture [Para. 107 “The SPS 510 includes a sub-picture size 531, a sub-picture location 532, and sub-picture IDs 533 related to the complete set of sub-pictures 522”. Para. 116], and a size of a coding tree unit/block (CTU/CTB) included in the picture [Para. 14, Para. 84 “a CTU can be divided into CTBs, which can then be divided into CBs for inclusion in CUs”. It’s clear that CTU are one or more CTBs. Therefore, CTU is equivalent to CTB. Para. 118 also states measuring CTU’s size as the following “the minimum CTU 825 size may be sixteen luma samples in height and sixteen luma samples in width. Further, the maximum CTU 825 size may be one hundred twenty eight luma samples in height and one hundred twenty eight luma samples in width.”], when the subpicture is located at a right border or a bottom border of the picture, the position of the subpicture being indicated using the size of the CTB (subpicture is not integer multiple of CTB/CTU) [Para. 24, 57; 118, 119, and 201; para. 4 “sub-picture widths and sub-picture heights are constrained to be multiples of CTU size. However, these constraints are removed when a sub-picture is positioned at the right boundary of the picture or the bottom boundary of the picture, respectively”; Para. 124 “if a sub-picture's height is not an integer multiple of luma CTU size, the sub-picture may be required to be located at a bottom most position in the picture. In some cases, a sub-picture's width can be signaled in units of luma CTU size, but the width of a sub-picture is not an integer multiple of luma CTU size. In this case, the actual width in luma samples can be derived based on the sub-picture's offset location. The sub-picture's width can be derived based on luma CTU size and the picture's height can be derived based on luma samples”. Therefore, it’s clear that when the sub-picture size is not integer multiple of CTU/CTB, the location of the sub-picture is at the right/bottom boarder]; and extracts/specified a sub-bitstream of the subpicture from a bitstream of the picture [Para. 133 “a sub-bitstream extraction process may be specified for a set of sub-picture sequences”. Para. 106, and 202].
Wang doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
WANG2 teaches when the subpicture is a first subpicture (subpicture 0) out of a plurality of subpictures (3 subpictures) included in the picture, a parameter set (psp) of the bitstream does not include a parameter relating to the position of the subpicture (subpic_ctu_top_left_x [0], subpic_ctu_top_left_y [0]), and the parameter set of the bitstream includes a parameter relating to the size of the subpicture (subpic_width_minus1 [0], Subpic_hieght_minus1 [0]) [Para. 288, “In particular, the SPS includes information on signaling of subpicture”; Para. 316 “a picture is partitioned into 216 CTUs, 4 tiles, 4 slices and 3 subpictures.”, Para. 317-321], and when the subpicture is a last subpicture (subpicture 2) out of the plurality of subpictures (3 subpictures) included in the picture, the parameter set (sps) of the bitstream includes the parameter relating to the position of the subpicture (subPic_ctu_top_left_x[2], subpic_ctu_top_left_y[2]), and the parameter set of the bitstream does not include the parameter relating to the size of the subpicture (subpic_width_minus1[2], subpic_height_minus1[2]) [Para. 316 “A value of sps_num_subpics_minus1 is 2”; [0327] For subpicture 2, [0328] subpic_ctu_top_left_x[ 2 ] value is 9; [0329] subpic_ctu_top_left_y[ 2 ] value is 6; [0330] subpic_width_minus1[ 2 ] is not signaled but inferred as 8; [0331] subpic_height_minus1[ 2 ] is not signaled but inferred as 5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wang to teach these limitations, feature as taught by WANG1; because the modification enables the system to improve the efficiency and consistency of signaling syntax elements in video parameter sets, solving the problem of redundant and inconsistent bitstream signaling in modern video codecs.
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches wherein the position of the subpicture is a position of a coding tree unit (CTU) located at an upper left of the subpicture [Para. 134 “a coding block width cbWidth, a coding block height cbHeight, a location (x0, y0) of the top-left luma sample of the considered coding block relative to the top-left luma sample of the picture”. fig. 8 and related description], and the position of the CTU is indicated by an order of the CTU among CTUs arranged sequentially from left of the picture in a horizontal direction [Fig. 8, ID 4, 5, 6 and related description. It’s clear to see that the middle CTUs are arranged sequentially from left to right].
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches wherein the circuitry further derives the size of the subpicture using (i) a total number of CTUs arranged in the subpicture (fig. 8 ID 4, 5, 6) in the horizontal direction or a vertical direction and (ii) the size of the CTB, when the subpicture is located at neither the right border nor the bottom border of the picture [Para. 14, Para. 84 “a CTU can be divided into CTBs, which can then be divided into CBs for inclusion in CUs” it’s clear that CTU are one or more CTBs. Therefore, CTU is equivalent to CTB. Para. 118 also states measuring CTU’s size “the minimum CTU 825 size may be sixteen luma samples in height and sixteen luma samples in width. Further, the maximum CTU 825 size
may be one hundred twenty eight luma samples in height and one hundred twenty eight luma samples in width.”].
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches wherein the circuitry derives a width of the subpicture using a width of the picture, a position of a left border of the subpicture, and a width of the CTB, when the subpicture is located at the right border of the picture [Para. 118].
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches wherein the circuitry derives a width of the subpicture using a parameter relating to the width of the subpicture among parameters in a parameter set of the bit and a width of the CTB, when the subpicture is not located at the right border of the picture [Para. 124, and 204].
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches wherein the circuitry derives a height of the subpicture using a height of the picture, a position of a top border of the subpicture, and a height of the CTB, when the subpicture is located at the bottom border of the picture [Para. 201, fig. 8 and related description].
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches wherein the circuitry derives a height of the subpicture using a parameter relating to the height of the subpicture among parameters in a parameter set of the bitstream and a height of the CTB, when the subpicture is not located at the bottom border of the picture Para. 124, and 204].
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches wherein the circuitry derives the size of the subpicture included in the picture using a size of the picture, the position (right/bottom border) of the subpicture indicated using the size of the CTB included in the picture, and the size of the CTB, when the size of the picture is not any multiple of the size of the CTB and the subpicture is located at the right border or the bottom border of the picture [Para. 10, 17 and 124].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0319299) in view of WANG et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0199203 hereinafter WANG2) further in view of Hsu et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0176475).
Regarding claim 3, Wang in view of WANG2 doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Hsu teaches wherein the circuitry derives, as the size of the subpicture included in the picture, a value obtained by subtracting, from a size of the picture, a product of a value indicating the position of the subpicture in the picture and the size of the CTB, when the subpicture is located at the right border or the bottom border of the picture [Para. 162, 180. Right or left of the boarder is subjective because it changes based on the field of view].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wang in view of WANG2 to teach these limitations, feature as taught by Hsu; because the modification enables the system to improve the signaling for the subpicture layout in the sequence parameter set at a video coder.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0319299) in view of WANG et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0199203 hereinafter WANG2) further in view of Jeon Patent No. (5,832,172).
Regarding claim 5. Wang in view of WANG2 doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Jeon teaches wherein the circuitry further rewrites a picture size in a parameter set in the sub-bitstream by using the size of the subpicture [Col. 2 lines 47-55].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wang in view of WANG2 to teach these limitations, feature as taught by Jeon; because the modification enables the system to record and reproduce an advanced television signal having trick play data to and from digital video tapes.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10 AM-8 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oneal Mistry can be reached on 313-446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 888-786-0101 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-4000.
/SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666