DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/21/2026 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 are allowed.
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, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2021/0337199) in view of Deshpande et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0394301).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Wang teaches an image processing apparatus (video coding device) comprising: circuitry; and memory coupled to the circuitry, wherein, in operation, the circuitry: derives a width (actual width in luma samples) of a subpicture included in a picture, when the subpicture is located at a right border (right most position) of the picture, with a horizontal top-left position (x offset) indicated in units of a coding tree block (CTB) size (CtbSizeY) [Para. 18 “In an embodiment, the disclosure includes a video coding device comprising: a processor, a memory, a receiver coupled to the processor, and a transmitter coupled to the processor, the processor, memory, receiver, and transmitter configured to perform the method of any of the preceding aspects”; Para. 119 “The location of a sub-picture in the picture (x offset and y offset) can be signaled in units of luma samples”; and Para. 120 “If a sub-picture's width is not an integer multiple of luma CTU size, the sub-picture may be required to be located at a right most position in the picture” and “In this case, the actual width in luma samples can be derived based on the sub-picture's offset location”].
However, Wang doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
Deshpande teaches the width of the subpicture being derived by subtracting, from a width of the picture in luma samples (Pic_width_max_in_luma_sameples), a product of (i) a horizontal top- left position of the subpicture indicated in units of a coding tree block (CTB) size (subpic_ctu_top_left_x) and (ii) the CTB size (CtbsizeY) [Para. 109, and 181 “subpic_ctu_top_left_x”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wang’s sub-picture width-derivation logic by incorporating Deshpande’s teaching of deriving subpicLeftBoundaryPos from subpic_ctu_top_left_x [SubPicidx]*CtbSizey and SubPicRightBourndaryPos using Pic_width_max_in_luma_smpales-1 to calculate Wang’s actual width in luma samples for a right most position sub-picture as the picture-width boundary minus the left-boundary product plus one. This modification improves Wang by making the right-edge sub-picture width precise when the sub-picture width is not an integer multiple of CTU size, thereby enabling correct sub-bitstream picture-size values.
Wang teaches derives a height (actual height in luma sample) of the subpicture (, when the subpicture is located at a bottom border (bottom most position) of the picture, with a vertical top-left position (y offset) indicated in a unit of the CTB size (CtbSizeY) [Para. 119 and 120].
However, Wang doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
Deshpande teaches the height of the subpicture being derived by subtracting, from a height of the picture in luma samples (pic_height_max_in_luma_samples), a product of(i) a vertical top-left position of the subpicture indicated in units of the CTB size (subpic_ctu_top_left_y) and (ii) the CTB size (CtbSizeY) [Para. 109, and 181].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wang’s sub-picture width-derivation logic by incorporating Deshpande’s teaching of deriving subpicLeftBoundaryPos from subpic_ctu_top_left_x [SubPicidx]*CtbSizey and SubPicRightBourndaryPos using Pic_width_max_in_luma_smpales-1 to calculate Wang’s actual width in luma samples for a right most position sub-picture as the picture-width boundary minus the left-boundary product plus one. This modification improves Wang by making the right-edge sub-picture width precise when the sub-picture width is not an integer multiple of CTU size, thereby enabling correct sub-bitstream picture-size values.
Regarding claim 4, Wang doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Deshpande 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 (subpic_width_minus1[i] plus 1/subpic_height_minus1[i] plus 1) and (ii) the size of the CTB (CtbSizeY), when the subpicture is located at neither the right border nor the bottom border of the picture [Para. 109, and 119].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wang’s sub-picture width-derivation logic by incorporating Deshpande’s teaching of deriving subpicLeftBoundaryPos from subpic_ctu_top_left_x [SubPicidx]*CtbSizey and SubPicRightBourndaryPos using Pic_width_max_in_luma_smpales-1 to calculate Wang’s actual width in luma samples for a right most position sub-picture as the picture-width boundary minus the left-boundary product plus one. This modification improves Wang by making the right-edge sub-picture width precise when the sub-picture width is not an integer multiple of CTU size, thereby enabling correct sub-bitstream picture-size values.
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches wherein the circuitry further rewrites (updated) a picture size in a parameter set in the sub-bitstream (new bitstream) by using the size of the subpicture (sub-picture’s size) [Para. 118 and Para. 128].
Regarding claim 7, Wang doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
Deshpande teaches image processing apparatus according to wherein the circuitry derives a width of the subpicture using a parameter relating to the width of the subpicture (subpic_width_minus1[i]) among parameters in a parameter set (SPS) of a bitstream and a CTB width, when the subpicture is not located at the right border of the picture [Para. 109].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wang’s sub-picture width-derivation logic by incorporating Deshpande’s teaching of deriving subpicLeftBoundaryPos from subpic_ctu_top_left_x [SubPicidx]*CtbSizey and SubPicRightBourndaryPos using Pic_width_max_in_luma_smpales-1 to calculate Wang’s actual width in luma samples for a right most position sub-picture as the picture-width boundary minus the left-boundary product plus one. This modification improves Wang by making the right-edge sub-picture width precise when the sub-picture width is not an integer multiple of CTU size, thereby enabling correct sub-bitstream picture-size values.
Regarding claim 9, Wang doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
Deshpande teaches the circuitry derives a height of the subpicture using a parameter relating to the height of the subpicture (subpic_height_minus[i]) among parameters in a parameter set (SPS) of a bitstream and a CTB (CtbSizeY) height, when the subpicture is not located at the bottom border of the picture [Para. 109].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wang’s sub-picture width-derivation logic by incorporating Deshpande’s teaching of deriving subpicLeftBoundaryPos from subpic_ctu_top_left_x [SubPicidx]*CtbSizey and SubPicRightBourndaryPos using Pic_width_max_in_luma_smpales-1 to calculate Wang’s actual width in luma samples for a right most position sub-picture as the picture-width boundary minus the left-boundary product plus one. This modification improves Wang by making the right-edge sub-picture width precise when the sub-picture width is not an integer multiple of CTU size, thereby enabling correct sub-bitstream picture-size values.
Regarding claim 10, wang teaches wherein the circuitry derives a size of the subpicture included in the picture using a size of the picture, a position of the subpicture indicated using the CTB (CtbSizeY) size, and the CTB size, when the size of the picture is not any multiple of the CTB size and the subpicture is located at the right border or the bottom border of the picture [Para. 116 and 120].
Conclusion
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-7 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, O’Neal 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-0101 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights