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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 11, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp.9-10, filed January 12, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim(s) 1, 11, 21, and 26 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 newly considered prior art.
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 1-5, 7-15, 17-23, 25-28, 30-34 are 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.
The Examiner was unable to find support for the limitation “identification information in the SEI processing order SEI message, wherein the identification information identifies the first SEI message among a plurality of SEI messages sharing a same payload type”. Specifically, the Examiner was unable to find support for the identification information that identifies the first SEI message among a plurality of SEI messages sharing a same payload type.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 11, 13-15, 21-23, 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. (US 2024/0283978) in view of McCarthy et al. (“SEI processing order SEI message in VVC (Draft 1), Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29, 27th Meeting, by teleconference, 13-22 July 2022, Document: JVET-AA2027-v1).
Regarding claim 1 Yin teaches a method of processing video data, the method comprising:
receiving a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) processing order SEI message (SEI processing order SEI message – Tables 1-4);
decoding a first syntax element in the SEI processing order SEI message, the first syntax element indicating a preferred processing order of a first SEI message present in a bitstream; decoding a second syntax element in the SEI processing order SEI message, the second syntax element indicating the preferred processing order of a second SEI message present in the bitstream, wherein the first syntax element and the second syntax element have different values (po_sei_order[i] provides the absolute order of SEI messages with payload Type equal to po_sei_payload_type[i]; the values of po_sei_order[m] and po_sei_order[n] shall not be identical when m is not equal to n – [0036]; note po_sei_order[m] is being interpreted as the first syntax element indicating a preferred processing order of a first SEI message and po_sei_order[n] is being interpreted as the second syntax element indicating the preferred processing order of a second SEI message); and
processing the first SEI message and the second SEI message in accordance with the preferred processing order (Figures 1A, 1B, and 2 show the first and second SEI messages being processed based on the preferred processing order).
However, fails to explicitly disclose decoding identification information in the SEI processing order SEI message, wherein the identification information identifies the first SEI message among a plurality of SEI messages sharing a same payload type.
In his disclosure McCarthy discloses decoding identification information in the SEI processing order SEI message, wherein the identification information identifies the first SEI message among a plurality of SEI messages sharing a same payload type (“else if (payloadType = = 2013) sei_processing_order(payloadSize) – D.2.1 General SEI payload syntax, page 3).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of McCarthy into the teachings of Yin because such incorporation decreases the complexity of the decoding process.
Regarding claim 3 Yin discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: decoding an SEI payload type syntax element using a first decoding technique, and wherein decoding the first syntax element comprises decoding the first syntax element using the first decoding technique (po_sei_payload_type[i] with descriptor of u(8) – Table 4).
Regarding claim 4 Yin discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the first decoding technique is an 8-bit unsigned integer (u(8)) decoding technique (po_sei_payload_type[i] with descriptor of u(8) – Table 4).
Regarding claim 5 Yin discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the first decoding technique is a 16-bit unsigned integer (u(16)) decoding technique ( for( i = 0; i < num_sei_payload_types; i++) with unsigned u(16) – Table 4).
Claim 11 corresponds to the apparatus performing the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Claim 13 corresponds to the apparatus performing the method of claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 3.
Claim 14 corresponds to the apparatus performing the method of claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 4.
Claim 15 corresponds to the apparatus performing the method of claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 5.
In regards to claim 21, any decoder technology except the parsing/entropy decoding that is present in a decoder also necessarily needs to be present, in substantially identical form in a corresponding encoder. The description of encoder technologies can be abbreviated as they are the inverse of the comprehensively described decoder technologies. Claim 21 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
In regards to claim 22, any decoder technology except the parsing/entropy decoding that is present in a decoder also necessarily needs to be present, in substantially identical form in a corresponding encoder. The description of encoder technologies can be abbreviated as they are the inverse of the comprehensively described decoder technologies. Claim 22 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 3.
In regards to claim 23, any decoder technology except the parsing/entropy decoding that is present in a decoder also necessarily needs to be present, in substantially identical form in a corresponding encoder. The description of encoder technologies can be abbreviated as they are the inverse of the comprehensively described decoder technologies. Claim 23 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 5.
Claim 26 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Claim 27 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 3.
Claim 28 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 5.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. (US 2024/0283978) in view of McCarthy et al. (“SEI processing order SEI message in VVC (Draft 1), Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29, 27th Meeting, by teleconference, 13-22 July 2022, Document: JVET-AA2027-v1) further in view of Wang (WO 2024/026032 A1).
Regarding claim 2 Yin discloses the method of claim 1. Yin further discloses that the first syntax element is po_sei_processing_order[i] syntax element, wherein a value of i indicates a particular SEI message (Table 4).
However fails to explicitly disclose the first syntax element and the second syntax element is a po_sei_processing_order[ i ] syntax element, wherein a value of i indicates a particular SEI message.
In his disclosure Wang teaches the first syntax element and the second syntax element is a po_sei_processing_order[ i ] syntax element, wherein a value of i indicates a particular SEI message (the preferred order syntax element is po_sei_processing_order, the first entry is po_sei_processing_order[0], and the second entry is po_sei_processing_order[1] – [0007]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Wang into the teachings of Yin because such incorporation properly processes the content and enables an adequate user experience.
Examiner’s notes: (1) Support for this claim was found in provisional application US 63/378,789 giving this claim the priority date of October 7, 2022. (2) Provisional Application 63/392,779 of WO 2024/026032 has support for the rejection of claim 2.
Claim 12 corresponds to the apparatus performing the method of claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 2.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. (US 2024/0283978) in view of McCarthy et al. (“SEI processing order SEI message in VVC (Draft 1), Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29, 27th Meeting, by teleconference, 13-22 July 2022, Document: JVET-AA2027-v1) further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2008/0019438).
Regarding claim 7 Yin discloses the method of claim 1. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first SEI message is a T35 SEI message, wherein the T35 SEI message indicates at least a country code.
In his disclosure Takahashi teaches the first SEI message is a T35 SEI message, wherein the T35 SEI message indicates at least a country code (Fig. 16 shows itu_t_t35_country_code; see also [0295-0296]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Takahashi into the teachings of Yin because it is a known technique in the video coding standards and yield predictable results.
Claim 17 corresponds to the apparatus performing the method of claim 7. Therefore, claim 17 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 7.
Claim(s) 8-10, 18-20, 25, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. (US 2024/0283978) in view of McCarthy et al. (“SEI processing order SEI message in VVC (Draft 1), Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29, 27th Meeting, by teleconference, 13-22 July 2022, Document: JVET-AA2027-v1) further in view of Cricrí et al. (WO 2024/068081 A1).
Regarding claim 8 Yin discloses the method of claim 1. However, fails to explicitly disclose decoding a prefix present flag, wherein the prefix present flag indicates if a prefix syntax element is present in the SEI processing order SEI message, the prefix syntax element indicating prefix bits or prefix bytes for the first SEI message; and decoding the prefix syntax element based on the prefix present flag.
In his disclosure Cricrí teaches decoding a prefix present flag, wherein the prefix present flag indicates if a prefix syntax element is present in the SEI processing order SEI message, the prefix syntax element indicating prefix bits or prefix bytes for the first SEI message; and decoding the prefix syntax element based on the prefix present flag (po_sei_prefix_index[i] – pp.36-39).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Cricrí into the teachings of Yin because such incorporation yields the predictable result of maintaining the quality to satisfy human perceptual ability.
Examiner’s notes: (1) Support for this claim was found in US Provisional Application 63/481,896 giving this claim the priority date of January 27, 2023. (2) Priority Data 20225858 of WO 2024/068081 A1 has support for the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9 Yin discloses the method of claim 8. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the prefix syntax element indicates a value of a prefix bit for the first SEI message, the method further comprising: decoding a number of prefix bits syntax element that indicates a number of prefix syntax elements that are present in the SEI processing order SEI message.
In his disclosure Cricrí teaches the prefix syntax element indicates a value of a prefix bit for the first SEI message, the method further comprising: decoding a number of prefix bits syntax element that indicates a number of prefix syntax elements that are present in the SEI processing order SEI message (po_sei_prefix_index[i]; po_sei_prefix_data_bit – pp.36-39).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Cricrí into the teachings of Yin because such incorporation yields the predictable result of maintaining the quality to satisfy human perceptual ability.
Examiner’s notes: (1) Support for this claim was found in US Provisional Application 63/481,896 giving this claim the priority date of January 27, 2023. (2) Priority Data 20225858 of WO 2024/068081 A1 has support for the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10 Yin discloses the method of claim 8. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the prefix syntax element indicates a value of a prefix byte for the first SEI message, the method further comprising: decoding a number of prefix bytes syntax element that indicates a number of prefix syntax elements that are present in the SEI processing order SEI message.
In his disclosure Cricrí teaches the prefix syntax element indicates a value of a prefix byte for the first SEI message, the method further comprising: decoding a number of prefix bytes syntax element that indicates a number of prefix syntax elements that are present in the SEI processing order SEI message (po_sei_prefix_index[i]; po_sei_prefix_data_bit – pp.36-39).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Cricrí into the teachings of Yin because such incorporation yields the predictable result of maintaining the quality to satisfy human perceptual ability.
Examiner’s notes: (1) Support for this claim was found in US Provisional Application 63/481,896 giving this claim the priority date of January 27, 2023. (2) Priority Data 20225858 of WO 2024/068081 A1 has support for the rejection of claim 10.
Claim 18 corresponds to the apparatus performing the method of claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 8.
Claim 19 corresponds to the apparatus performing the method of claim 9. Therefore, claim 19 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 9.
Claim 20 corresponds to the apparatus performing the method of claim 10. Therefore, claim 20 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 10.
In regards to claim 25, any decoder technology except the parsing/entropy decoding that is present in a decoder also necessarily needs to be present, in substantially identical form in a corresponding encoder. The description of encoder technologies can be abbreviated as they are the inverse of the comprehensively described decoder technologies. Claim 25 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 8.
Claim 30 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 8.
Claim(s) 31-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. (US 2024/0283978) in view of McCarthy et al. (“SEI processing order SEI message in VVC (Draft 1), Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29, 27th Meeting, by teleconference, 13-22 July 2022, Document: JVET-AA2027-v1) further in view of Hannuksela et al. (WO 2024/079718 A1).
Regarding claim 31 Yin discloses the method of claim 1. However, fails to explicitly disclose decoding a third syntax element in the SEI processing order SEI message, the third syntax element indicating a first N bytes of the first SEI message.
In his disclosure Hannuksela teaches decoding a syntax element in the SEI processing order SEI message, the third syntax element indicating a first N bytes of the first SEI message (sei_processing_order_data_byte – [0363-0364]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Hannuksela into the teachings of Yin because such incorporation improves the experience of the user (paragraph 363).
Examiner’s Note: (1) Support for this claim was found in provisional application US 63/382,004 giving this claim the priority date of November 2, 2022. (2) Provisional Application 63/379,540 of WO 2024/079718 has support for the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 32 corresponds to the apparatus performing the method of claim 31. Therefore, claim 32 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 31.
In regards to claim 33, any decoder technology except the parsing/entropy decoding that is present in a decoder also necessarily needs to be present, in substantially identical form in a corresponding encoder. The description of encoder technologies can be abbreviated as they are the inverse of the comprehensively described decoder technologies. Claim 33 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 31.
Claim 34 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 31.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON whose telephone number is (571)270-1103. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 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, CHRISTOPHER S 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.
/MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON/Examiner, Art Unit 2482