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 .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed on 03/05/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2022/0060693.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16-19, 21-23, and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HENDRY (US 2023/0033332) in view of Hendry et al. (US 2021/0409690) hereinafter “Hendry_2”.
As per claim 1, HENDRY discloses a method of processing video data, comprising:
performing a conversion between a video comprising a picture comprising a first subpicture and a neighboring second subpicture 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; see also Fig. 10), 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 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 subpicture and the second subpicture have different NAL unit types, the first syntax element for the picture is equal to 1, and values of the second syntax elements for the first subpicture and the second subpicture are equal to 1 (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), which means that mixed_nalu_types_in_pic_flag can only be equal to 1 when all subpictures have their corresponding subpic_treated_as_pic_flag[ ] equal to 1 (as taught in paragraph 0264 of the instant specification as-published). 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 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
However, HENDRY does not explicitly disclose wherein the format rule further specifies that a trailing subpicture that is associated with a gradual decoding refresh subpicture follows the gradual decoding refresh subpicture in a decoding order.
In the same field of endeavor, Hendry_2 discloses wherein the format rule further specifies that a trailing subpicture that is associated with a gradual decoding refresh subpicture follows the gradual decoding refresh subpicture in a decoding order (paragraph 0453, a decoding order begins with the GDR picture 702, continues with the trailing pictures 704, and then proceeds to the recovery point picture 706. In an embodiment, the trailing pictures 704 may be considered a form of GDR picture since they precede the recovery point picture 706 in the GDR period).
While HENDRY discloses a trailing picture (paragraph 0217), a GDR picture (paragraph 0219), and that subpicture can be treated as a picture (paragraph 0170, each subpicture in one picture may be treated as a picture; see also paragraphs 0190-0191). 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 wherein when the first subpicture and the second subpicture have second syntax elements with a same value, the first subpicture and the second subpicture 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 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 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 11-12, arguments analogous to those applied for claims 3-4 are applicable for claims 11-12.
As per claim 13, HENDRY discloses wherein the first subpicture and the second subpicture contain at least one of P slices, B slices or I slices (paragraph 0110).
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 16-17, arguments analogous to those applied for claims 3-4 are applicable for claims 16-17.
As per claim 18, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 13 are applicable for claim 18.
As per claim 19, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 1 are applicable for claim 19; in addition, HENDRY discloses storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (paragraph 0002).
As per claim 21, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 3 are applicable for claim 21.
As per claim 22, arguments analogous to those applied for claims 4 and 6 are applicable for claim 22.
As per claim 23, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 13 are applicable for claim 23.
As per claim 25, HENDRY discloses wherein the format rule further specifies that when sps_idr_rpl_present_flag has a value of 0 and the first syntax element has a value of 1, a picture referring to the picture parameter set is disallowed to have slices with nal_unit_type equal to IDRW_RADL or IDR_N_LP (paragraph 0183).
As per claim 26, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 13 are applicable for claim 26.
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US 20220060693, US 20210195248)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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