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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per Applicant’s argument that Deshpande does not disclose any flag specifying a value of VPS identifier, let alone the condition that this flag’s value is greater than 0.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs the Applicant to at least paragraphs [0446], [0448], [0501], [0506] and [0514] where Deshpande discloses If sps_video_parameter_set_id is not equal to 0 and vps_output_layer_mode is equal to 0 and the current access unit contains a picture that has pic_output_flag equal to 1, has nuh_layer_id nuhLid greater than that of the current picture, and does not belong to an output layer (i.e., OutputLayerFlag[GeneralLayerIdx[nuhLid]] is equal to 0). The Examiner notes that the values of sps_video_parameter_set_id has a value of either 0 or greater than 0, [0090], therefore when sps_video_parameter_set_id is not equal to 0, the value is greater than 0, which more than fairly reads on and disclose the claimed flag specifying a value of VPS identifier being greater than 0. Desphande further discloses vps_output_layer_mode does not belong to an output layer. Turning to para [0082], Desphande discloses vps_output_layer flag equal to 0 specifies that the i-th layer is not output; thus suggesting and reading on the limitation the current video layer is not an output layer. Thus, the Examiner maintains that Desphande more than fairly discloses, suggest and reads upon the limitation as recited in claim 1.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1, 8-10, 16, 20, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Deshpande et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0345745 A1).
As per claim 1, Deshpande teaches a method of video processing, comprising: performing a conversion between a video having one or more video layers and a bitstream of the video according to a first format rule (fig. 1, fig. 5-6, table 1A-1B,k [0067], [0432], [0446-0448], [0501-0506]) , and wherein the first format rule specifies that a value of a first variable indicating whether to output a picture is set equal to 0 ([0446], [0448], [0501], “… PictureoutputFlag is set as follows: If one of the following conditions is true, Pictureouttputflag is set equal to 0:) when a flag specifying a value of an identifier for a video parameter set is greater than 0 and a current video layer is not an output layer ([0506], if sps_video_parameter_set_id is not equal to 0 and vps_output_layer_mode is equal to 0 and the current access unit contains a picture that has pic_outputput_flag equal to 1, has nuh_layer_id_nuhLid greater than that of the current picture, and does not belong to an output layer (i.e, OutputLayerFlag[GeneralLayerIdx[nuhLid] is equal to 0), or one of the following conditions is true: a current picture is a random access skipped leading picture and an associated intra random access point picture in a decoded picture buffer prior to the current picture in decoding order is not output before the associated intra random access point picture is recovered; or the current picture is a gradual decoding refresh picture with pictures in the decoded picture buffer prior to the current picture in decoder order that are not output.
As per claim 8, Deshpande teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, Deshpande teaches wherein the conversion includes encoding the video into the bitstream (fig. 1, fig. 5).
As pe claim 9, Deshpande teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, Deshpande discloses wherein the conversion includes decoding the video from the bitstream (fig. 1 and fig.6).
As per claim 10, which is the corresponding apparatus for processing video data with the limitations of the method of video processing as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here.
As per claim 16, which is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions with the limitations of the method of video processing as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here.
As per claim 20, which is the corresponding method for storing a bitstream with the limitations of the method of video processing as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here.
As per claim 25, Deshpande teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, Deshpande teaches wherein the flag is a syntax element included in a sequence parameter set (SPS), a video parameter set (VPS), a picture parameter set (PPS), a picture header, a slice header or a tile group header(table 1B).
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) 2-3,7, 11-12, 17-18, 21, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0345745 A1) in view of Wang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0217388 A1) and further in view of Wang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0195545 A1; herein referenced as Wang’45) and further in view of Nishi et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/03212023 A1).
As per claim 2,Deshpande teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, Deshpande teaches wherein the conversion (fig. 1, 5-6) is performed according to a second format rule (table 1A-1B), however, Deshpande does not explicitly disclose wherein the second format rule specifies that a maximum picture width and/or a maximum picture height for video pictures of at least one layer and a greatest allowed value of a chroma format indicator control a value of a second variable that indicates whether pictures in a decoded picture buffer prior to a current picture in a decoding order in the bitstream are output before the pictures being removed from the decoded picture buffer, and wherein the maximum picture width and/or maximum picture height are included in a video parameter set.
However, Wang teaches wherein the second format rule specifies that a maximum picture width and/or a maximum picture height for video pictures of at least one layer control a value of a variable that indicates whether pictures in a decoded picture buffer prior to a current in decoding order in the bitstream are output before the pictures being removed from the coded picture buffer ([0068], [0137], [0155-0157] an fig. 9 el. 907, fig. 10 el. 1007; deriving the variable NoOutputOrPriorPicsFlag based on the value of pic_width_max_in_luma_samples, pic_height_max_in_luma_samples_chroma_format_idc).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Wang with Deshpande for the benefit of providing improvement in signaling parameters to support coding of multi-layer bitstreams.
Deshpande (modified by Wang) does not explicitly disclose a greatest allowed value of a chroma format indicator control a value of a second variable that indicates whether pictures in a decoded picture buffer prior to a current picture in a decoding order in the bitstream are output before the pictures being removed from the decoded picture buffer.
However, Wang’45 teaches and a greatest allowed value of a chroma format indicator control a value of a second variable that indicates whether pictures in a decoded picture buffer prior to a current picture in a decoding order in the bitstream are output before the pictures being removed from the decoded picture buffer ([0159-0161], “by setting NoOutputOfPriorPicsFlag to 1, the decoder can control the amount of memory needed in the DPB by removing pictures in the DPB as appropriate. However, the amount of memory needed in the DPB may also be affected by changes in the color format and/or the bit depth of pictures. Unless the worst case or maximum color format or bit depth are assumed, not considering the color format and/or the bit depth may lead to a sub-optimal memory size for the DPB. Setting the value of NoOutputPriorPicsFlag to 1 to control the amount of available memory when the maximum chroma format is assumed; the Examiner interprets the greatest allowed chroma format as the assumed maximum chroma format).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Wang’45 with Deshpande (modified by Wang) for the benefit of providing improved performance of inter-layer prediction in scalable video coding extension of HEVC, which may be referred to as SHVC as well as improving coding efficiency and reducing computational resources.
Deshpande (modified by Wang and Wang’45) does not explicitly disclose wherein the maximum picture width and/or maximum picture height are included in a video parameter set.
However, Nishi teaches wherein the maximum picture width and/or the maximum picture height are included in a video parameter set ([0884-0885], “encoder 100 may perform the determination with reference to a maximum picture width (ols_dpb_pic_width[TargetOlsIdx]) and a maximum picture height (ols_dpb_pic_height[TargetOlsIdx]) signaled in the VPS”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Nishi with Deshpande with (Wang and Wang’45) in order to provide improvements in coding efficiency, enhancement of image quality, reduction in processing amount of encoding/decoding, reduction in circuit scale, improvement in processing speed of encoding/decoding [0006].
As pe claim 3, Deshpande (modified by Wang, Wang’45 and Nishi) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 2. Deshpande does not explicitly disclose wherein the value of the second variable is set to 1 when a value of the maximum width of each picture, the maximum height of each picture, a greatest allowed value of a chroma format indicator, or a greatest allowed value of a bit depth minus 8 that is derived for a current access unit is different from a value of the maximum width of each picture, the maximum height of each picture, a greatest allowed value of a chroma format indicator or a greatest allowed value of a bit depth minus 8, respectively, that is derived for a preceding access unit in decoding order, and wherein the value of the second variable being equal to 1 indicates the pictures in the decoded picture buffer prior to the current picture in decoding order are not output before the pictures being removed from the decoded picture buffer.
However, Wang teaches wherein the value of the second variable is set to 1 when a value of the maximum width of each picture, the maximum height of each picture, a greatest allowed value of a chroma format indicator, or a greatest allowed value of a bit depth minus 8 that is derived for a current access unit is different from a value of the maximum width of each picture, the maximum height of each picture, a greatest allowed value of a chroma format indicator or a greatest allowed value of a bit depth minus 8, respectively, that is derived for a preceding access unit in decoding order (abstract, [0156-0157]), and wherein the value of the second variable being equal to 1 indicates the pictures in the decoded picture buffer prior to the current picture in decoding order are not output before the pictures being removed from the decoded picture buffer (abstract, [0156-0157]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Wang with Deshpande (modified by Wang’45 and Nishi) for the benefit of providing improvement in signaling parameters to support coding of multi-layer bitstreams.
As per claim 7, Deshpande (modified by Wang) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 2. Deshpande does not explicitly disclose wherein, for performing the conversion for a layer containing more than one coded layer video sequence and having a layer index i, the second format rule specifies to allocate memory for a decoded picture buffer according to value of at least one of syntax elements that include ols_dpb_pic_width[i] indicating a width of each picture storage buffer for an i-th layer, ols_dpb_pic_height[i] indicating a height of each picture storage buffer for the i-th layer, a syntax element ols_dpb_chroma_format[i] indicating the greatest allowed value of the chroma format indicator for the i-th layer, and a syntax element ols_dbp_bitdepth_minus8 [i] indicating a greatest allowed value of a bit depth minus 8 for the i-th layer.
However, Nishi teaches for performing the conversion for a layer containing more than one coded layer video sequence and having a layer index i, the second format rule specifies to allocate memory for a decoded picture buffer according to value of at least one of syntax elements that include ols_dpb_pic_width[i] indicating a width of each picture storage buffer for an i-th layer, ols_dpb_pic_height[i] indicating a height of each picture storage buffer for the i-th layer, a syntax element ols_dpb_chroma_format[i] indicating the greatest allowed value of the chroma format indicator for the i-th layer, and a syntax element ols_dbp_bitdepth_minus8 [i] indicating a greatest allowed value of a bit depth minus 8 for the i-th layer ([0870-0872]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Nishi with Deshpande (modified by Wang and Wang’45) for the benefit to provide improvements in coding efficiency, enhancement of image quality, reduction in processing amount of encoding/decoding, reduction in circuit scale, improvement in processing speed of encoding/decoding ([0006]).
As per claim 11, which is the corresponding apparatus with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 2, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 2 also applies here.
As per claim 12, which is the corresponding apparatus with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 3, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 3 also applies here.
As per claim 17, which is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instruction with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 3, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 3 also applies here.
As per claim 18, which is the corresponding apparatus with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 2, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 2 also applies here.
As per claim 21, which is the corresponding apparatus with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 7, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 7 also applies here.
As per claim 24, Deshpande (modified by Wang, Wang’45, Nishi) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 2. Deshpande does not explicitly disclose wherein the second format rule further specifies that a greatest allowed value of a bit depth minus 8 controls the value of the variable that indicates whether pictures in the decoded picture buffer prior to the current picture in decoding order in the bitstream are output before the pictures being removed from the decoded from the decoded picture buffer.
However, Wang teaches wherein the second format rule further specifies that a greatest allowed value of a bit depth minus 8 controls the value of the variable that indicates whether pictures in the decoded picture buffer prior to the current picture in decoding order in the bitstream are output before the pictures being removed from the decoded from the decoded picture buffer ([0159-0160]; In one example, if the bit depth of luma samples changes from 8 bits to 16 bits, it would be desirable to flush the pictures in the DPB to make more memory available in the DPB. Since Wang discloses the case that the maximum chroma format or bit depth can be assumed, and further that the variable NoOutputOfPriorPicsFlag is derived based on the chroma format and/or bit depth, Wang more than fairly discloses to consider the maximum (greatest) chroma or bit depth when deriving the variable NoOutputOfPriorPicsFlag. In addition, Wang discloses the case where 16 bits is the greatest allowed bit depth. Thus Wang more than fairly discloses controlling the variable NoOutPutOfPriorPicsFlag based on a greatest allowed value of bit depth when the greatest allowed value is 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Wang with Deshpande (modified by Wang’45 and Nishi) for the benefit of providing improvements in signaling parameters to support coding of multi-layer bitstreams.
Claim(s) 5, 15, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0345745 A1) in view of Wang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0217388 A1) and further in view of Wang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0195545 A1; herein referenced as Wang’45) and further in view of Nishi et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/03212023 A1) in further view of Hendry et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0373771 A1).
As per claim 5, Deshpande (modified by Wang, Wang’45 and Nishi) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 2. Deshpande does not explicitly disclose wherein the greatest allowed value of the chroma format indicator and/or a greatest allowed value of a bit depth minus 8 are included in a video parameter set.
However, Hendry teaches wherein the greatest allowed value of the chroma format indicator and/or greatest allowed value of a bit depth minus 8 are included in a video parameter set ([0066], [0239-294] and table 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Hendry with Deshpande (modified by Wang, Wang’45 and NIshi) for the benefit of providing improved and efficient video encoding and decoding.
As per claim 14, which is the corresponding apparatus for processing video data with the limitations of the method of video processing as recited in claim 5, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim also applies here.
As per claim 22, Deshpande (modified by Wang, Wang’45 and Nishi) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 17. Deshpande does not explicitly disclose wherein the greatest allowed value of the chroma format indicator and/or the greatest allowed value of a bit depth minus 8 in a video parameter set.
However, Hendry teaches wherein the greatest allowed value of the chroma format indicator and/or the greatest allowed value of a bit depth minus 8 in a video parameter set ([0066], [0293-0294], table 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Hendry with Deshpande (modified by Wang, Wang’45 and Nishi) for the benefit of providing improved and efficient video encoding and decoding.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0345745 A1) in view of Wang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0217388 A1) and further in view of Wang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0195545 A1; herein referenced as Wang’45) and further in view of Nishi et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/03212023 A1) further in view of Choi et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0203956 A1).
As per claim 6, Deshpande (modified by Wang, Wang’45 and Nishi) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 2. Deshpande does not explicitly disclose wherein the greatest allowed value of the chroma format indicator for a layer is applicable to all sequence parameter sets that are referred to by one or more layer video sequences in the layer.
However, Wang teaches the known concept of a the greatest chroma format allowed value for the chroma format ([0156]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Wang with Deshpande (modified by Wang’45 and Nishi) for the benefit of providing improvement in signaling parameters to support coding of multi-layer bitstreams.
Deshpande (modified by Wang, Wang’45 and Nishi) does not explicitly disclose wherein the chroma format indicator for a layer is applicable to all sequence parameter sets that are referred to by one or more layer video sequences in the layer.
However, Choi teaches wherein the chroma format indicator or a layer is applicable to all sequence parameter sets that are referred to by one or more layer video sequences in the layer ([0221]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Choi with Deshpande (modified by Wang, Wang’45, and Nishi) in order to improve the field of computing by improving video encoding and decoding ([0034]).
As per claim 15, which is the corresponding apparatus for processing video data with the limitations of the method of video processing as recited in claim 6, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 6 also applies here.
As per claim 23, which is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with the limitations of the method of video processing as recited in claim 6, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 6 also applies here.
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1821. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30 P.M..
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.
JESSICA PRINCE
Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/JESSICA M PRINCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights