DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the After-Final Amendment filed on 12/05/2025 and is submitted as a Non-Final for the reasons given below.
In the filed response, Claims 1-10 and 25 have been amended, where Claims 1 and 25 are independent claims. Claims 22-24 were previously canceled.
Accordingly, Claims 1-21, 25, and 26 have been examined and are pending.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 8-10, filed 12/05/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-10, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive regarding the art of record (notably Chujoh). Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, after carefully considering Chujoh, a new ground of rejection can be made under 35 U.S.C. 102 with additional clarifications provided. For this reason, the current office action is submitted as a Non-Final. Please see examiner’s responses below.
2. Applicant asserts Chujoh does not disclose design conditions for a subpicture (pg. 9 of remarks). Applicant further asserts figs. 12 and 14 of Chujoh are not linked and that combining these two figures amounts to impermissible hindsight (pg. 9). Thus, Applicant argues Chujoh fails to disclose that each of the plurality of subpictures overlaps the conformance window (pg. 10). Page 10 of the arguments also note “Chujoh necessarily fails to teach "designs each of subpictures included in a picture such that at least one pixel included in each of the subpictures is included in a conformance cropping window of the picture, a size of the conformance cropping window being different from a size of the picture," as required in claim 1. Lastly, Applicant that states prior art Sim fails to provide disclosure that would obviate the deficiencies of Chujoh above, and for these reasons, any combination of Chujoh and Sim fails to disclose, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the features of claim 1.
3. Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s points, however, after further consideration of claim 1 in view of Chujoh, the examiner respectfully submits the following. First regarding “design conditions”, as noted in Applicant’s arguments above, claim 1 merely recites “designs each of subpictures included in a picture” without mentioning anything about “conditions” as later recited in dependent claims 2-5. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the term “designs” can be understood, within the context of the claim, as any means for configuring subpictures within a picture that satisfies the one-pixel constraint. Even though Chujoh does not ‘explicitly’ refer to “designs each of subpictures included in a picture” (emphasis added), Chujoh describes freely ‘configuring’ the sizes of each of the subpictures and the size of the picture for decoding purposes (e.g. ¶0157), where the size of the picture is understood to be with reference to the conformance window in units of pictures (conf_win_left_offset, etc.), as required. Thus, said ‘configuring’ can be construed as being analogous to ‘designing’ “each of subpictures included in a picture” given its BRI. Examiner agrees that Fig. 12 of Chujoh only references a single subpicture which overlaps the conformance window, i.e. at least one pixel is included. Examiner also agrees that fig. 12 and fig. 14 are not ‘directly’ linked. However, given that a picture can have more than one subpicture (see e.g. fig. 14, ¶0128, and ¶0157), the examiner respectfully submits that a skilled practitioner in the art of video coding would be able to reasonably conceive an overlap for each of the more than one subpicture with the conformance window whose offset can be any value greater than 0 (¶0133). This indicates small offsets can be realized which would facilitate having the more than one subpicture overlap the conformance window, i.e. at least one pixel is included. This would also appear to be the case if the subpictures themselves are allowed to overlap each other (¶0128). In summary, although Chujoh does not ‘explicitly’ recite this link, this does appear to be suggested in the teachings as noted above. Regarding Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (pg. 9), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In light of the foregoing, the examiner respectfully submits, Chujoh, either alone or in combination, reasonably teaches and/or suggests all of the features of independent claim 1 given the BRI. Although the wording in independent claims 6, 25, and 26 is slightly different (for e.g., claims 6 and 25 do not use the term “designs”), the reasoning presented above similarly applies. To help place the Instant Application in condition for allowance, the examiner recommends clarifying claims 1, 6, 25, and 26 to show that a design includes conditions being satisfied with respect to the borders of the subpictures and the conformance cropping window of the picture. Also after further consideration, claims 2-5 and 7-10 are deemed allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Please see below for details.
4. Applicant’s remarks and amendments with respect to the claim objections are acknowledged. As such, the claim objections are withdrawn.
5. The Examiner is available to discuss the matters of this office action to help move the Instant Application forward. Please refer to the conclusion to this office action regarding scheduling interviews.
6. Accordingly, Claims 1-21, 25, and 26 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Objections
7. Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a bitstream, the bitstream being generated by circuitry performing an encoding method, the encoding method including...” (emphasis added), however, there appears to be no explicit reference to storing instructions/information in the CRM that are used by the circuitry to generate the bitstream. Please update accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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 1, 6, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chujoh et al. US 2020/0177922 A1 (with reference to priority document WO 2018221368 A1 previously made available in office action dated 03/13/2025), hereinafter referred to as Chujoh, where Chujoh describes techniques for coding subpictures that can prevent a break of the boundary of the subpictures and a difference in image quality at said boundary of said subpictures, thus resulting in high-quality images being obtained (e.g. ¶0105). Please see below for details.
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim, Chujoh discloses and/or suggests “A video encoder comprising: circuitry; and memory coupled to the circuitry, wherein, in operation, the circuitry [Please refer to encoder 11 as shown in figs. 5 and 23 which must contain the corresponding hardware to perform as intended]: designs each of subpictures included in a picture [Given the BRI of the term “designs” (please see examiner’s response #3), Chujoh describes freely ‘configuring’ the sizes of each of the subpictures and the size of the picture for decoding purposes (e.g. ¶0157), where the size of the picture is understood to be with reference to the conformance window in units of pictures (conf_win_left_offset, etc.); hence, Chujoh’s configuring can be construed as analogous to designing] such that at least one pixel included in each of the subpictures is included in a conformance cropping window of the picture [Please refer to examiner’s response #3 regarding ¶0128, ¶0157 and fig. 14, which suggest there may be more than one subpicture. Since the sizes of each of the subpictures and the size of the picture can be freely configured, where the size of said picture is with reference to the conformance window (see above), a skilled practitioner in the art of video coding would be able to reasonably conceive an overlap for each of the more than one subpicture with the conformance window, whose offset can be any value greater than 0 (¶0133); hence, small offsets can be realized which would facilitate having the more than one subpicture overlap the conformance window. Also note the overlapping subpictures in ¶0128], a size of the conformance cropping window being different from a size of the picture [Although ¶0133 suggests ‘0’ offsets are possible, this is construed as merely an example. Non-zero offsets can also be realized, i.e. offset can be any value greater than 0. As such, the size of the conformance cropping window can be made smaller than that of the picture as in fig. 12, i.e. is different]; encodes arrangement information indicating an arrangement of each of the subpictures [Please see the corresponding syntax elements in for e.g. figs. 10 and 13 of Chujoh in relation to the positioning of subpictures. Also note Chujoh’s subpicture information (construed as ‘arrangement information’) generated by encoder 17 (fig. 16) which indicates how the picture is divided (e.g. ¶0099)]; and encodes each of the subpictures.” [See subpicture coders 18a…18n in encoding device 17 (for e.g. figs. 16-17). This is also shown in fig. 5]
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the encoder of Claim 1, since decoding and encoding are inverse processes that enable compressed video data to be reconstructed for viewing at a destination device. Please refer to figs. 23-24 of Chujoh. Also please see Chujoh’s subpicture information (construed as ‘arrangement information’) generated by encoder 17 (fig. 16) and used by decoder 37 (fig. 18) for indicating how the picture is divided (e.g. ¶0099). Regarding the condition where at least one pixel in each of the subpictures is included in a conformance cropping window, a size of the conformance cropping window being different from a size of the picture, this is suggested in Chujoh for the same reasons presented in claim 1 given the claim’s BRI.
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the encoder and decoder of Claims 1 and 6, respectively, since the compressed video data that is output at the encoder must be transmitted via a transmitting means to the decoder. This is shown in Figs. 23-24 of Chujoh. As to the first circuitry “generates a first parameter indicating an arrangement of each of subpictures included in a picture”, please refer to Chujoh’s subpicture information (construed as ‘arrangement information’) generated by encoder 17 (fig. 16) which indicates how the picture is divided (e.g. ¶0099). This is later used by decoder 37 (fig. 18). Regarding the transmitting apparatus, the transmission medium, and the receiving apparatus, see figs. 21 and 23-24. Lastly, regarding the requirement where at least one pixel in each of the subpictures is included in a conformance cropping window, a size of the conformance cropping window being different from a size of the picture, this is suggested in Chujoh for the same reasons presented in claim 1 given the claim’s BRI.
Regarding claim 26, claim 26 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the encoder of Claim 1, since the featured arrangement of subpictures signaled in the bitstream is an operation that is performed for e.g. by the encoder. See for e.g. Chujoh’s subpicture information (construed as ‘arrangement information’) generated by encoder 17 (fig. 16) which indicates how the picture is divided (e.g. ¶0099). This is subsequently used by decoder 37 (fig. 18) for combining the subpictures. Regarding the requirement where at least one pixel in each of the subpictures is included in a conformance cropping window, a size of the conformance cropping window being different from a size of the picture, this is suggested in Chujoh for the same reasons presented in claim 1 given the claim’s BRI.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 11-21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As previously noted, the examiner finds the art of record is silent with respect to how the offset value of the new conformance cropping window is determined as required in independent claim 11, i.e., “wherein, when deriving the new conformance cropping window, the circuitry determines, based on an arrangement of the subpicture in the picture, whether to apply 0 or an original offset value of the original conformance cropping window to an offset value of the new conformance cropping window”. Therefore, the art of record, either alone or in combination, do not appear to reasonably teach and/or suggest the above limitation, when considering the claim as a whole, given the BRI. As such, claim 11 and corresponding dependent claims 12-21 are in condition for allowance.
9. Claims 2-5 and 7-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of records. The prior art of record, taken individually or in combination fail to explicitly teach or render obvious within the context of the respective independent claims the limitations:
2. (Currently Amended) The video encoder according to claim 1, wherein a condition for designing the subpictures includes that a left border of each of the subpictures is located left of a right border of the conformance cropping window of the picture.
3. (Currently Amended) The video encoder according to claim 1, wherein a condition for designing the subpictures includes that a right border of each of the subpictures is located right of a left border of the conformance cropping window of the picture.
4. (Currently Amended) The video encoder according to claim 1, wherein a condition for designing the subpictures includes that a top border of each of the subpictures is located above a bottom border of the conformance cropping window of the picture.
5. (Currently Amended) The video encoder according to claim 1, wherein a condition for designing the subpictures includes that a bottom border of each of the subpictures is located below a top border of the conformance cropping window of the picture.
7. (Currently Amended) The video decoder according to claim 6, wherein the condition includes that a left border of each of the subpictures is located left of a right border of the conformance cropping window of the picture.
8. (Currently Amended) The video decoder according to claim 6, wherein the condition includes that a right border of each of the subpictures is located right of a left border of the conformance cropping window of the picture.
9. (Currently Amended) The video decoder according to claim 6, wherein the condition includes that a top border of each of the subpictures is located above a bottom border of the conformance cropping window of the picture.
10. (Currently Amended) The video decoder according to claim 6, wherein the condition includes that a bottom border of each of the subpictures is located below a top border of the conformance cropping window of the picture.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to PTO 892. For e.g. see fig. 10 of Chen et al. US 11,785,220 B2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 pm.
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486