Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/29/2025 has been entered.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 19 and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by HENDRY (US 2023/0033332).
As per claims 19 and 21-24, HENDRY teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of video which is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus (paragraph 0008, a non-transitory decoder-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream generated by an image encoding method or apparatus), wherein the method comprises (the method steps do not carry patentable weight as the claim is a product-by-process claim in which only the bitstream (product), generated by the method steps (process), is given weight. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“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 bitstream in claims 19 and 21-24 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure, which scope is implied by the method steps, 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 HENDRY which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (¶0008).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11-14 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HENDRY (US 2023/0033332).
As per claim 1, HENDRY discloses a method of processing video data, comprising:
performing a conversion between a video comprising a picture comprising two neighboring subpictures and a bitstream of the video (see the conversion between an image and a bitstream shown by the image encoding apparatus of Fig. 2 and the image decoding apparatus of Fig. 3, wherein the picture includes two subpictures as taught in the Abstract),
wherein a first syntax element is related to one or more video coding layer (VCL) network abstraction layer (NAL) units in each picture referring to a picture parameter set (i.e., mixed_nalu_types_in_pic_flag),
wherein a second syntax element indicates whether a corresponding subpicture in a coded layer video sequence is treated as a picture (i.e., subpic_treated_as_pic_flag[i]),
wherein the bitstream conforms to a format rule that specifies that when the first syntax element for the picture is equal to 1, values of the second syntax elements for the two neighboring subpictures with different types of NAL units are equal to 1 (paragraph 0192, when a current picture has a mixed NAL unit type (e.g., pps_mixed_nalu_types_in_pic_flag=1), all the subpictures in the current picture may be limited to be treated as a picture (e.g., sps_subpic_treated_as_pic_flag i=1)),
wherein the two neighboring subpictures comprise at least one of P slices, B slices, or I slices (paragraph 0110);
wherein the first syntax element equal to 1 indicates that each picture referring to a picture parameter set contains more than one VCL NAL unit and the more than one VCL NAL unit of each picture referring to the picture parameter set do not have a same NAL unit type (paragraph 0183), and
wherein the second syntax element equal to 1 indicates that a corresponding subpicture in a coded layer video sequence is treated as a picture (paragraphs 0190-0191), and
wherein the format rule further specifies that a trailing subpicture that is associated with an intra random access point subpicture or a gradual decoding refresh subpicture follows the intra random access point subpicture or the gradual decoding refresh subpicture in a decoding order (paragraph 0217, the trailing picture may follow the associated IRAP picture in a decoding order).
While HENDRY discloses a trailing picture (paragraph 0217) and that subpicture can be treated as a picture (paragraphs 0190-0191); in addition, HENDRY teaches a trailing subpicture (paragraph 0181). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the format rule related to trailing picture to a trailing subpicture since the subpicture can be treated as a picture. Thus, improving encoding/decoding efficiency.
As per claim 3, HENDRY discloses the method of claim 1, wherein when the two neighboring subpictures have second syntax elements with a same value, the two neighboring subpictures have a same type of NAL unit (paragraph 0192, when a current picture includes two or more subpictures (e.g., pps_num_subpics_minus1>0) and at least one of the subpictures is not treated as a picture (e.g., sps_subpic_treated_as_pic_flag[i]==0), the current picture may be limited not to have a mixed NAL unit type (e.g., pps_mixed_nalu_types_in_pic_flag=0); paragraph 0179 teaches pps_mixed_nalu_types_inpic_flag having a first value (e.g., 0) may indicate that a current picture does not have a mixed NAL unit type. In this case, the current picture may have the same NAL unit type for all VCL NAL units).
As per claim 4, HENDRY discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first syntax element is included in the bitstream, and wherein the first syntax element equal to 0 indicates that each picture referring to the picture parameter set contains one or more VCL NAL units and the one or more VCL NAL units of each picture referring to the picture parameter set have a same NAL unit type (paragraph 0179).
As per claim 5, HENDRY discloses the method of claim 4, wherein when the first syntax element is equal to 1, values of the second syntax elements for all the subpictures that are in the picture and contain at least one of P slices, B slices or I slices are equal to 1 (paragraphs 0192 and 0110).
As per claim 6, HENDRY discloses the method of claim 4, wherein when the first syntax element is equal to 0, a picture is referred to as having the same NAL unit type as the coded slice NAL units of the picture (paragraph 0179).
As per claim 7, HENDRY discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the video into the bitstream (see the image encoding apparatus of Fig. 2).
As per claim 8, HENDRY discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the video from the bitstream (see the image decoding apparatus of Fig. 3).
As per claim 9, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 1 are applicable for claim 9; in addition, HENDRY discloses a processor and a non-transitory memory with instruction thereon, wherein the instruction upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform the claimed method (paragraph 0321).
As per claims 11-13, arguments analogous to those applied for claims 3-5 are applicable for claims 11-13.
As per claim 14, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 1 are applicable for claim 14; in addition, HENDRY discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform the claimed method (paragraph 0321).
As per claims 16-18, arguments analogous to those applied for claims 3-5 are applicable for claims 16-18.
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US 2023/0262248)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED JEBARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 09:00am-06:00pm.
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.
/MOHAMMED JEBARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights