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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/14/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Application
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 9 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Presented arguments have been fully considered, but are rendered moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment(s) initiated by the applicant(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by JHU et al. (Hereafter, “Jhu”) [US 2023/0087759 A1].
In regards to claim 6, the claim limitations and the recitation of “…storage medium storing data representative of a portion of video data comprising…” is a non-functional descriptive material, wherein no functional relationship exists between the storage medium and data. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed data in claim 6 merely services as a support for the storage of the data and provides no functional relationship between the stored data and the storage medium. Therefore, the structure data is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Jhu which recites a storage medium storing data [0007 and 0100].
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jhu in view of Wang et al. (Hereafter, “Wang”) [US 2022/0400290 A1].
In regards to claim 1, Jhu discloses a method for decoding ([Abstract] A method, apparatus, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for decoding a video signal are provided.) comprising: obtaining video data comprising a general constraint information ([0052] For decoder operation point related information in SPS, there is a list of constraint flags that indicate properties that cannot be violated in the entire bitstream. The constraint flags are encapsulated into their own syntax structures, general_constraint_info( ). The syntax and the associated semantic of general constraint information in the current VVC draft specification is illustrated in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively.), the general constraint information comprising a first syntax element ([Table 11 and 13 and 0081-0082] no_weighted_pred_constraint_flag and no_weight_bipred_constraint_flag) imposing, with a first value, that a first sequence parameter set level syntax element related to a weighted prediction mode indicates that the weighted prediction mode is deactivated in the video data ([Table 12] no_weighted_pred_constraint_flag equal to 1 specifies that sps_weighted_pred_flag shall be equal to 0 [0081] sps_weighted_pred_flag equal to 0 specifies that weighted prediction is not applied to P slices referring to the SPS) and that a second sequence parameter set level syntax element related to a weighted bi-prediction mode indicates that the weighted bi-prediction mode is deactivated in the video data ([Table 14] no_weighted_bipred_constraint_flag equal to 1 specifies that sps_weighted_bipred_flag shall be equal to 0 [0082] sps_weighted_bipred_flag equal to 0 specifies that explicit weighted prediction is not applied to B slices referring to the SPS), and, with a second value, that no constraint is imposed on the first and the second sequence parameter set level syntax elements in the video data ([Table 12] no_weighted_pred_constraint_flag equal to 0 does not impose such a constraint [Table 14] no_weighted_bipred_constraint_flag equal to 0 does not impose such a constraint), the first syntax element being equal to the first value responsive to a second syntax element comprised in the general constraint information indicates that all slices of the video data are coded in intra ([0081] Therefore, it is proposed to add one bitstream conformance constraint that the value of no_weighted_pred_constant_flag should be equal to 1, when only intra coding is allowed for coding the sequence. [0082] Additionally, it is proposed to add one bitstream conformance constraint that the value of no_weight_bipred_constraint_flag should be equal to one, when only intra coding is allowed for coding the sequence. [Table 12] When intra_only_constraint_flag is equal to 1, the value of no_weighted_pred_constraint_flag shall be equal to 1. [Table 14] When intra_only_constraint_flag is equal to the value of 1, no_weighted_bipred_constraint_flag shall be equal to 1.); and decoding the video data based on the first syntax element ([Abstract] The decoder may obtain prediction samples based on the at least one of the constraint flags.).
Jhu fails to explicitly disclose that the no_weighted_pred_constraint_flag and no_weighted_pred_constraint_flag are a single syntax element.
Wang discloses a method for decoding ([0004] The present document discloses techniques, which include weighted prediction, that can be used by video encoders and decoders for processing a bitstream of a video to perform video encoding and decoding.) comprising: obtaining video data comprising a general constraint information ([0007] In yet another example aspect, another video processing method is disclosed. The method includes performing a conversion between a current slice of a current picture of a video and a bitstream of the video, wherein the bitstream conforms to a format rule, and wherein the format rule specifies that a general constraint information syntax structure, which comprises one or more constraint flags indicating constraints on an explicit weighted prediction being enabled for slices of a set of pictures, is present. [Fig. 5 and 8]), the general constraint information comprising a first syntax element ([0322] 4) An indication of explicit weighted prediction being enabled may be signalled in the SPS using one flag.) imposing, with a first value, that a first sequence parameter set level syntax element related to a weighted prediction mode indicates that the weighted prediction mode is deactivated in the video data and that a second sequence parameter set level syntax element related to a weighted bi-prediction mode indicates that the weighted bi-prediction mode is deactivated in the video data, and, with a second value, that no constraint is imposed on the first and the second sequence parameter set level syntax elements in the video data ([0323] a. Alternatively, furthermore, this one-flag SPS indication may be used to condition the signalling of the indications of explicit weighted prediction for P and B slices (i.e., sps_weighted_pred_flag and sps_weighted_bipred_flag) in the SPS. [0324] b. Alternatively, one or multiple constraint flags may be added to the general constraint information syntax to indicate constraints on explicit weighted prediction. [0325] i. In one example, one constraint flag, e.g., named no_explicit_weighted_prediction_constraint_flag, is added, and when the constraint flag indicates that explicit weighted prediction for both P slices and B slices (or just for P slice or just for B slices) is not applied, the corresponding SPS flag(s) may be equal to 0.); and decoding the video data based on the first syntax element ([0007] In yet another example aspect, another video processing method is disclosed. The method includes performing a conversion between a current slice of a current picture of a video and a bitstream of the video, wherein the bitstream conforms to a format rule, and wherein the format rule specifies that a general constraint information syntax structure, which comprises one or more constraint flags indicating constraints on an explicit weighted prediction being enabled for slices of a set of pictures, is present. [Fig. 5 and 8]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zhu’s intra_only_constraint_flag to indicate the value of the no_weighted_pred_constraint_flag and the no_weighted_bipred_constraint_flag with the single constraint flag SPS indication used to condition the signalling of the indications of explicit weighted prediction for P and B slices (i.e., sps_weighted_pred_flag and sps_weighted_bipred_flag) in the SPS as taught by Wang in order to improve the signalling of weighted prediction related syntax elements [See Wang].
Claim 2 lists all the same elements of claim 1, but in encoding form rather than decoding form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 2.
Claim 3 lists all the same elements of claim 1, but in device form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 3.
Claim 4 lists all the same elements of claim 2, but in device form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 4.
Claim 8 lists all the same elements of claim 1, but in non-transitory information storage medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 8.
Claim 9 lists all the same elements of claim 2, but in non-transitory information storage medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 9.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kaitlin A Retallick whose telephone number is (571)270-3841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/KAITLIN A RETALLICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482