DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the RCE filed June 25, 2025. Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-16 are pending and are examined.
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 Amendment
The amendments made to original claims 1, 8, and 16 and the cancellation of claims 7 and 14 have been fully considered.
In light of these amendments/cancellations, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) are withdrawn.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments and amendments received May 27, 2025 have been fully considered.
With regard to 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to disclose wherein for the current picture being not a first picture of a current AU that is a CVSS AU that is not AU 0, only based on a case of satisfying a first condition in which a number of pictures in the DPB is greater than or equal to a value of the syntax element related to the maximum required size of the DPB plus 1, a bumping process is invoked repeatedly until the number of pictures in the DPB is less than the value of the syntax element related to the maximum required size of the DPB plus 1, and wherein the AU 0 is a first AU of the bitstream. This language corresponds to the newly amended language of claims 1, 8, and 16.
Examiner disagrees. As detailed below, the combined process is repeated for all current pictures, including those pictures that are not “a first picture of a current access unit (AU) that is a coded video sequence start (CVSS) access unit (AU) that is not AU 0”. As detailed below, it is unclear the full meaning of this new limitation, but for the sake of argument, even if it were clear, this limitation does not require a check to determine whether the current picture is such a picture and only then apply a process. Rather, the claim simply recites that the process is used wherein the picture is such a picture. Thus, when such a process is used for all pictures, e.g., whether they are the first picture of a current AU or not and whether the current picture is a CVSS AU that is not AU or not, then it will be used for those pictures that are not “a first picture of a current access unit (AU) that is a coded video sequence start (CVSS) access unit (AU) that is not AU 0”.
Ultimately, however, these have been considered but they are directed to newly amended language, which is addressed further below. See the rejection below for how the art of record reads on the newly amended language as well as the examiner's interpretation of the cited art in view of the presented claim set.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The independent claims include the phrase “for the current picture being not a first picture of a current access unit (AU) that is a coded video sequence start (CVSS) access unit (AU) that is not AU 0”. This phrase includes a double-negative and is generally unclear. For example, it is not clear whether this phrase refers to a negative answer to the following question – is the picture “a first picture of a AU that is a CVSS AU that is not AU 0 (not the first AU of the bitstream)”? Or, does it indicate that the current picture is not a first picture of a current AU, but that the current picture is a CVSS AU that is not AU0? Or some variation thereof. In other words, in when reading the claim language in a typical English fashion, in part due to the lack of clarity of the first “not” and what it applies to, as well as the double-negative within the phrase, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purposes of this Action, the phrase is interpreted to indicate that the limitation applies to current pictures in which the answer to the question “is the current AU a CVSS AU that is not AU 0?” is “no”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0238822 (“Koyabu”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0105027 (“Deshpande 2”).
With respect to claim 1, Koyabu discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including
An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus (see Abstract, Fig. 4, item 11, ¶¶67, 81-83, 110, 140-141, describing an image decoding method performed by a decoder), the method comprising:
obtaining image information including decoded picture buffer (DPB) related information from a bitstream (see citations and arguments with respect to element above and ¶¶138, 140, describing obtaining image information including the DPB maximum picture number from the SPS, PPS, and slice header, i.e., DPB related information from a bitstream);
updating a DPB based on the DPB related information (see citations with respect to elements above and ¶¶95, 100-110, describing that the DPB is updated, e.g., images are added and deleted, based on the DPB maximum picture number, i.e., based on the DPB related information); and
decoding a current picture based on the DPB (see citations and arguments with respect to elements above describing that the current picture is decoded based on the DPB and its contents),
wherein the DPB related information includes a syntax element related to a maximum required size of the DPB (see citations and arguments with respect to elements above describing that the DPB information includes a DPB maximum picture number, i.e., a syntax element related to a maximum required size of the DPB), and
wherein for the current picture being not a first picture of a current access unit (AU) that is a coded video sequence start (CVSS) access unit (AU) that is not AU 0, only based on a case of satisfying a first condition in which a number of pictures in the DPB is greater than or equal to a value of the syntax element related to the maximum required size of the DPB [], a bumping process is invoked repeatedly only until the number of pictures in the DPB is less than the value of the syntax element related to the maximum required size of the DPB [] (see citations and arguments with respect to elements above describing that the bumping process is invoked until the number of pictures in the DPB has reached the DPB maximum picture number, and a deletion process, i.e., a bumping process, is invoked repeatedly until the number of pictures in the DPB is equal to the value of the syntax element related to the maximum required size of the DPB. Koyabu gives no limitations saying its process is only used for first pictures of the current AU (that may or may not be CVSS AUs that may or may not be AU0), rather, such a process appears to be applied to all AUs, accordingly, it would have been understood to apply to all current pictures, including those that are not “a first picture of a current access unit (AU) that is a coded video sequence start (CVSS) access unit (AU) that is not AU 0”), and
wherein the AU 0 is a first AU of the bitstream (see element above).
Koyabu’s bitstream includes the max size of the DPB, rather than the max size of the DPB minus 1, i.e., it does not explicitly disclose wherein only based on a case of satisfying a first condition in which a number of pictures in the DPB is greater than or equal to a value of the syntax element related to the maximum required size of the DPB plus 1, and a bumping process is invoked repeatedly only until the number of pictures in the DPB is less than the value of the syntax element related to the maximum required size of the DPB plus 1.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Deshpande 2 discloses the signaling of a variable representing the max DPB size minus 1 rather than the max size of the DPB and then using this variable plus 1 to for appropriate thresholding, i.e.,
wherein only based on a case of satisfying a first condition in which a number of pictures in the DPB is greater than or equal to a value of the syntax element related to the maximum required size of the DPB plus 1, and a bumping process is invoked repeatedly only until the number of pictures in the DPB is less than the value of the syntax element related to the maximum required size of the DPB plus 1 (see ¶¶280, Table 6, 301, 392, describing that it was known to signal the maximum DPB size as max DPB size minus 1, e.g., sps_max_dec_pic_buffering_minus1[i], and adding + 1 to it when using it as a threshold for decision-making, e.g., sps_max_dec_pic_bufferingminus1[i] + 1).
As detailed above, Koyabu uses max DPB size to signal the maximum required size of the DPB to the decoder (see citations above). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with the different types of variables that might be signaled to indicate max DPB size and have understood that, as evidenced by Deshpande 2, an alternative would be to signal max DPB size minus 1 and to then, when used as a threshold at the decoder, add one to this value – Examiner also notes that it would have been clear to such a person that subtracting one from a variable and then adding one to it is the equivalent of sending the variable itself. Such a person would also have understood that signaling the variable minus 1 also saves bits in the bitstream (e.g., the binary number 5 requires a bit depth of 3 to signal, whereas the binary number 4 may only require bit depth 2). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to signal the maximum required size of the DPB as maximum size of the DPB minus 1, and for thresholding purposes use it +1, to compare to the appropriate threshold, as described in Deshpande 2 in place of signaling the DPB max size alone. Moreover, to such a person, doing so would have represented nothing more than the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to signal max DPB size minus 1 instead of max DPB size and, for thresholding purposes, then add 1 to the value, i.e., max DPB size minus 1+1, in the coding system of Koyabu as taught by Deshpande 2.
With respect to claim 2, Koyabu discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Koyabu in view of Deshpande 2 discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Koyabu/Deshpande 2 additionally discloses:
wherein the DPB related information includes a syntax element related to a maximum picture reorder number of the DPB or a syntax element related to maximum latency of the DPB (see Deshpande 2 ¶¶279, 281, 282, describing that it was also known to signal, as DPB related information, syntax elements related to maximum picture reorder number of the DPB or syntax related to maximum latency of the DPB), and
wherein invoking of the bumping process is not determined based on a second condition based on the syntax element related to the maximum picture reorder number of the DPB or a third condition based on the syntax element related to the maximum latency of the DPB (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above, describing that the bumping process is invoked based on max DPB size minus 1 +1, i.e., not based on a second or third condition).
As detailed above, Koyabu describes receiving syntax at the decoder related to DPB (see citations above). Koyabu does not detail, however, every syntax that a decoder may receive re a DPB. At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with the different DPB information that may be useful to signal to a decoder and have understood that, as evidenced by Deshpande 2, such information may include a max picture reorder number and max latency. Examiner notes that such variables may be useful for various DPB-related functionality in the decoder. For example, max latency can be tracked and, if latency is exceeded in the DPB, the decoder may signal a resolution change or it may signal another deletion process different from the bumping process. Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, signaling max latency information and max picture reorder number, in the coding system of Koyabu would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to achieve predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to signal additional DPB related information, including max latency and max picture reorder number, in the coding system of Koyabu/Deshpande 2 as taught by Deshpande 2.
With respect to claim 3, Koyabu discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Koyabu in view of Deshpande 2 discloses all the elements of dependent claim 2. Koyabu/Deshpande 2 additionally discloses:
wherein the bumping process is not invoked based on a case that the second condition or the third condition is satisfied, but the first condition is not satisfied (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above, describing that the bumping process is invoked based on max DPB size minus 1 +1, i.e., not based on a second or third condition, and that the bumping process is not invoked when the first condition is not satisfied, e.g., the number of pictures in the DPB is less than max DPB size, e.g., max DPB size minus 1 + 1).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 3.
With respect to claim 4, Koyabu discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Koyabu in view of Deshpande 2 discloses all the elements of dependent claim 2. Koyabu/Deshpande 2 additionally discloses:
wherein the second condition is a condition related to whether a number of pictures in the DPB marked as “needed for output” is greater than a value of the syntax element related to the maximum picture reorder number of the DPB, wherein the third condition is a condition related to whether a value of the syntax element related to the maximum latency of the DPB is not equal to 0, and whether there is at least one picture in the DPB marked as “needed for output” for which the associated variable PicLatencyCount is greater than or equal to MaxLatencyPictures, and wherein the MaxLatencyPictures is derived by (a value of the syntax element related to the maximum picture reorder number of the DPB + a value of the syntax element related to the maximum latency of the DPB -1 (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 1 and 2 above, describing that the bumping process is not invoked based on any other conditions, i.e., including those recited herein).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 4.
With respect to claim 5, Koyabu discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Koyabu in view of Deshpande 2 discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Koyabu/Deshpande 2 additionally discloses:
wherein a DPB fullness is decreased by 1 for a picture storage buffer that is emptied in the DPB during the bumping process that is invoked based on the case that the first condition is satisfied (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above, including Koyabu Fig. 3, “DPB List” - showing how full the DPB is, and ¶107, describing that the DPB list and/or the number of pictures in the DPB list (either may be considered a DPB fullness) is decreased by 1 by the removal of a picture when after the number of DPB pictures reaches the maximum size; see also citations with respect to claim 1 above, describing that this removal of pictures from the DPB occurs during a bumping process invoked based on the case that the first condition is satisfied).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 5.
With respect to claim 6, Koyabu discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Koyabu in view of Deshpande 2 discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Koyabu/Deshpande 2 additionally discloses:
after the bumping process invoked based on the case that the first condition is satisfied is performed, wherein an operation of decreasing a DPB fullness by 1 additionally for a picture storage buffer that is emptied in the DPB is not performed (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 1 and 5 above, including Koyabu Fig. 3, “DPB List” - showing how full the DPB is, and ¶107, describing that after a picture is removed, i.e., the bumping process is invoked based on the case that the first condition is satisfied is performed, the DPB list and/or the number of pictures in the DPB list (either may be considered a DPB fullness) are not additionally decreased by any additional “1”).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 6.
With respect to claims 8-13, Koyabu discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Koyabu in view of Deshpande 2 discloses all the elements of claims 1-6. Claims 8-13 recite the elements of claims 1-6, respectively, in encoding form rather than decoding form. The disclosure recited with respect to claims 1-6 also support claims 8-13, respectively. For example, where it is described that DPB related information is signaled to the decoder, it would have been clear to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that such information would have been generated at the encoder and encoded to be signaled to the decoder. The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claims 1-6 also apply to claim 8-13.
With respect to claim 15, claim 15 recites the elements of claim 1 in computer-readable medium form as opposed to method form. Koyabu discloses that its coding system may be embodied by a processor executing software stored on a computer-readable medium (see ¶¶268, 270-271). Accordingly, the disclosure recited with respect to claim 1 also applies to claim 15.
With respect to claim 16, claim 16 recites a method for transmitting data for image information comprising the elements described with respect to claims 1 and 8 above. The disclosure recited with respect to claims 1 and 8 also support such a method of transmitting.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY JANE KILE UHL whose telephone number is (571)270-0337. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 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, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. 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.
LINDSAY J UHL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481
/LINDSAY J UHL/Primary Examiner, 2481