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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 10/29/2025 is acknowledged.
Upon reviewing the claims again claim 14 depends on the non elected group without adding the distinctive feature of species I and will be restricted with species II.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 13, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nael Ouedraogo et. al., "(8.1) On Reconstruction of VVC track with 'subp' track references", Canon Research Centre France, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 3 m56765, April 2021 from IDS in view of Mohammed Golam Sarwer et. al., "AHG9: Bug-fix of the constraint flag of VVC", Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, Document: JVET-S0073-v2, June 2020 from IDS
Ouedraogo discloses:
15. and under similar rationale 1. An encoder that generates a first bitstream to be merged with a second bitstream (Fig. 1 and 2; sec. 2.1), determines a first adaptive loop filter (ALF) setting that is a setting of an ALF for a first subpicture to be encoded into the first bitstream (Fig. 1 and 2; sec. 2.1); encodes first ALF setting information indicating the first ALF setting into the first bitstream (Fig. 1 and 2; sec. 2.1); and encodes the first subpicture into the first bitstream according to the first ALF setting (Fig. 1 and 2; sec. 2.1),
Ouedraogo does not explicitly disclose the following, however it would be obvious to have the encoder comprising: circuitry; and memory coupled to the circuitry, wherein in operation, the circuitry:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to execute the software as disclosed with a circuitry/processor coupled with memory in order to allow the software to be implemented via a standard computer. As well known in the art, using memory and a processor (CPU) is a preferred way to implement software.
Sarwer teaches and in the determining of the first ALF setting, an ALF setting that does not refer to an adaption parameter set (APS) index referred to in the second bitstream is determined as the first ALF setting (sec. 2.1-2.3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to disable chroma alf and CCalf when ALF is disabled (Sarwer abstract).
2. The encoding method according to claim 1, wherein in the determining of the first ALF setting, an ALF setting that corresponds to no ALF or a linear ALF with predefined filter coefficients and does not refer to any APS index is determined as the first ALF setting. (pg. 2 last para.).
3. The encoding method according to claim 1,
Ouedraogo does not explicitly disclose the following, however Sarwer teaches further comprising: encoding information indicating that an ALF is enabled into at least one of a sequence parameter set or a picture parameter set of the first bitstream, wherein in the encoding of the first ALF setting information, the first ALF setting information is encoded into a slice header of the first bitstream. (sec. 2.1-2.3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to disable chroma alf and CCalf when ALF is disabled (Sarwer abstract).
5. The encoding method according to claim 1,
Ouedraogo does not explicitly disclose the following, however Sarwer teaches wherein the first ALF setting information includes, at a subpicture level or at a slice level, information that: enables or disables an ALF; disables an ALF with derived filter coefficients; disables an ALF for a chroma component; and disables a cross-component ALF for a chroma component. (sec. 2.1-2.3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to disable chroma alf and CCalf when ALF is disabled (Sarwer abstract).
16. and under similar rationale 7. The encoder according to claim 15, wherein the circuitry: determines whether to generate the first bitstream or the second bitstream (Fig. 1 and 2; sec. 2.1); when it is determined to generate the first bitstream, determines the first ALF setting (Fig. 1 and 2; sec. 2.1); encodes the first ALF setting information into the first bitstream (Fig. 1 and 2; sec. 2.1); and encodes the first subpicture into the first bitstream according to the first ALF setting, and when it is determined to generate the second bitstream, determines, from among ALF settings including an ALF setting that refers to the APS index, a second ALF setting that is a setting of an ALF for a second subpicture to be encoded into the second bitstream (Fig. 1 and 2; sec. 2.1); encodes second ALF setting information indicating the second ALF setting into the second bitstream (Fig. 1 and 2; sec. 2.1); and encodes the second subpicture into the second bitstream according to the second ALF setting (Fig. 1 and 2; sec. 2.1).
13. Ouedraogo does not explicitly disclose the following, however it would be obvious to have A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute the encoding method according to claim 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to execute the software as disclosed with a circuitry/processor coupled with memory in order to allow the software to be implemented via a standard computer. As well known in the art, using memory and a processor (CPU) is a preferred way to implement software.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouedraogo in view of Sarwer and Virginie Drugeon, PANASONIC BUSINESS SUPPORT EUROPE GMBH: "TM-AVC1221 Guidelines for personalization and accessibility with VVC", June 2021 from IDS
4. The encoding method according to claim 1,
Ouedraogo does not explicitly disclose the following, however Drugeon teaches further comprising: setting a sequence parameter set, a picture parameter set, and a picture header of the first bitstream to be identical to a sequence parameter set, a picture parameter set, and a picture header of the second bitstream, respectively (M.3.2 e.g. last para.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to create a mosaic service having main and supplementary video (Drugeon M.3.2).
6. The encoding method according to claim 1,
Ouedraogo does not explicitly disclose the following, however Drugeon teaches wherein the second bitstream is a main bitstream containing a first content that is independently viewed, and the first bitstream is a supplementary bitstream containing a second content that replaces a part of the first content and is viewed together with an other part of the first content. (M.3.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to create a mosaic service having main and supplementary video (Drugeon M.3.2).
8. The encoding method according to claim 7,
Ouedraogo does not explicitly disclose the following, however Drugeon teaches wherein in the determining of the second ALF setting, a value of the APS index is permitted to be determined from among a full range of values allowed by a video coding standard. (M.3.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to create a mosaic service having main and supplementary video (Drugeon M.3.2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W BECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7301. The examiner can normally be reached flexible usually 10-6.
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, Joseph G Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/JOSEPH W BECKER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2483