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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and Argument
Applicant’s amendment and argument with respect to pending claims 1, 4-7, 10-13 and 16-18 filed on 03/06/2026 have been fully considered but the argument has been rendered moot in view of a new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10-13 and 16-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “reconstructing the coded picture based on determining that the binary coded CU address is included in the list of layers to be decoded,” which was not described in the originally filed specification of the current application.
Claim 7 recites “encoding code configured to cause the at least one processor to encode picture based on the binary coded CU address and including the binary coded CU address in a list of layers to be decoded,” which was not described in the originally filed specification of the current application.
Claim 13 recites “encoding a picture based on determining that the binary coded CU address and including the binary coded CU address in a list of tiles to be encoded,” which was not described in the originally filed specification of the current application.
Dependent claims 4-6, 10-12 and 16-18 are rejected based on their dependency from the rejected claims 1, 7 and 13.
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 and 4-6 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.
Claim 1 recites “reconstructing the coded picture based on determining that the binary coded CU address is included in the list of layers to be decoded.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the list of layers to be decoded” in the claim.
Dependent claims 4-6 are rejected based on their dependency from the rejected claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande (US 20140211849 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 20130057646 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Deshpande discloses a method for video decoding, the method comprising: decoding binary coded coding unit(¶0308: The electronic device 302 may decode 2214 the current picture based on the used by current picture flag values… The bitstream of the video may include a syntax structure that is placed into logical data packets generally referred to as Network Abstraction Layer (NAL) units. Each NAL unit includes a NAL unit header, such as a two-byte NAL unit header (e.g., 16 bits), to identify the purpose of the associated data payload) comprising only a nal_unit_type syntax element that indicates a type of data that a NAL unit carries, a first field and a second field both preset equal to 0 ("forbidden_zero_bit" which is always set to zero at the start of a NAL unit; the nuh_reserved_zero_6 bits may be equal to 0), and a nuh_temporal_id_plus1 syntax element that indicates a temporal layer of a coded picture to which the NAL unit belongs (See Table (6): Table (6): NAL unit header including forbidden_zero_bit f(1) nal_unit_type u(6) nuh_layer_id u(6) nuh_temporal_id_plus1 u(3), ¶0308, 0317); and reconstructing the coded picture based on determining that the binary coded (¶0308: The electronic device 302 may decode 2214 the current picture based on the used by current picture flag values… The bitstream of the video may include a syntax structure that is placed into logical data packets generally referred to as Network Abstraction Layer (NAL) units. Each NAL unit includes a NAL unit header, such as a two-byte NAL unit header (e.g., 16 bits), to identify the purpose of the associated data payload).
Deshpande discloses NAL unit header including forbidden_zero_bit f(1) nal_unit_type u(6) nuh_layer_id u(6) nuh_temporal_id_plus1 u(3). See Table (6). Furthermore, as noted above Deshpande discloses a decoding method of a video bitstream that includes NAL unit header for identifying the purpose of the associated data payload.
Deshpande does not explicitly disclose decoding binary coded coding unit (CU) address, nuh_cu_address syntax element that indicates a CU address, and reconstructing the coded picture based on determining that the binary coded CU address is included in the list of layers to be decoded.
Chen at ¶0024, 0028 discloses a video encoding, decoding technique including network abstraction layer (NAL) unit, containing coded video data, has a slice header. The slice header may contain slice address, location of the starting macroblock and the slice type. Thus, Chen teaches a CU address (¶0028, 0070).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Deshpande by substituting “nuh_layer_id” as illustrated in Table 6 of Deshpande for CU address, as taught by Chen, to arrive at the claimed invention “decoding binary coded coding unit (CU) address, nuh_cu_address syntax element that indicates a CU address, and reconstructing the coded picture based on determining that the binary coded CU address is included in the list of layers to be decoded”. Substituting one known type of syntax element (nuh_layer_id) with another known type of syntax element (coding unit or slice address information) would have been a predictable modification yielding a predictable result of providing coding unit location information directly within the NAL header, such that it can easily be parsed by the decoder from the NAL header.
Regarding claims 4-6, Deshpande teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the binary coded (Deshpande: See Table (6): NAL unit header including forbidden_zero_bit f(1) nal_unit_type u(6) nuh_layer_id u(6) nuh_temporal_id_plus1 u(3)).
Chen at ¶0024, 0028 discloses a video encoding, decoding technique including network abstraction layer (NAL) unit, containing coded video data, has a slice header. The slice header may contain slice address, location of the starting macroblock and the slice type. Thus, Chen teaches a CU address (¶0028, 0070).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Deshpande by substituting “nuh_layer_id” as illustrated in Table 6 of Deshpande for CU address, as taught by Chen, to arrive at the claimed invention “wherein the binary coded CU address is in a fixed position in the NAL unit header; wherein a size of the binary coded CU address is determined through a predefined value of a high level syntax structure syntax element in the same NAL unit header; wherein a size of the binary coded CU address is determined through at least one syntax element in a parameter set, the parameter set being active for a picture to which the NAL unit header belongs”. Substituting one known type of syntax element (nuh_layer_id) with another known type of syntax element (coding unit or slice address information) would have been a predictable modification yielding a predictable result of providing coding unit location information directly within the NAL header, such that it can easily be parsed by the decoder from the NAL header Regarding claims 7 and 10-12, the claims are drawn to a device claim and recite the limitation analogous to claims 1 and 4-6, and are rejected due to a similar reason set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 4-6.
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.
Claim(s) 13 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Deshpande (US 20140211849 A1) .
Claim 13 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a video bitstream that is generated by a video encoding method… is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. 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 coding unit and other information 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 claim 18 merely serves as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure bitstream, 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 Deshpande which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (¶0088: a bitstream stored in a memory).
Dependent claims 16-18 are rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHNAEL AYNALEM whose telephone number is (571)270-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5:30 PM ET.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/NATHNAEL AYNALEM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights