DETAILED ACTION
1. Applicant’s amendment received on November 14, 2025 in which claims 1, 8, 13 and 18 were amended, and claims 2, 9 and 14 were canceled, has been fully considered and entered, but the arguments are not deemed to be persuasive.
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 Arguments
2. The Applicant argues that the cited references fail to disclose all of the limitations set forth in claims 1, 8, 13 and 18, and consequently does not render obvious claims 1, 3-8, 10-13 and 15-20.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The newly added language “wherein the current CVS contains the SDI SEI message” is the language of canceled claim 2, 9 and 14. That quoted language was previously met by the combination of Wang and Li, where Li’s paragraph [0208] was used to show such limitations. An obviousness statement was provided along with the teachings of Li (See Last Office Action mailed on 08/15/2024).
The Applicant further argues that claim 1 requires that the CVS contains the SDI SEI message, and independent claims 8, 13 and 18 contain similar limitations.
The Applicant went on to say that Wang merely mentions that the SEI message contains a syntax element, and that this syntax element indicates the number of IRAP pictures of DRAP pictures that are within the CLVS as the DRAP picture. The Applicant copied paragraph 7 of Wang to support his arguments. The Applicant finally added that the disclosure or Wang is unrelated to whether the CVS contains the SDI SEI message.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wang does relate to CVS, where CVS is the coded video sequence. In Wang’s paragraph [0265], Wang clearly indicates that “Motion compensation unit 302 may uses some of the syntax information to determine sizes of blocks used to encode frame(s) and/or slice(s) of the encoded video sequence, partition information that describes how each macroblock of a picture of the encoded video sequence is partitioned, modes indicating how each partition is encoded, one or more reference frames (and reference frame lists) for each inter-encoded block, and other information to decode the encoded video sequence.” .
The encoded video sequence in Wang’s paragraph [0265] is the same CVS (coded video sequence) that the Applicant is arguing about. A “CVS” is a coded video sequence or an “encoded video sequence”. It is the Examiner understanding that the CVS is the same “encoded video sequence” as disclosed in Wang.
Applicant reproduced Wang’s paragraph 7 to show that Wang discloses CLVS as the DRAP picture. However, the Applicant did not show or explain why the CLVS is not a CVS since the CLVS is a layer of a coded video sequence. In other words, the Applicant should not just indicate the a CLVS is not a CVS. It is the Applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate that the CLVS in not related to a CVS.
The Applicant did not present any arguments with respect to Li (US Patent Application Publication no. 2022/0337853).
In the last rejection, the Examiner specifically indicated that Wang was silent about the claimed “wherein the current CVS contains SDI SEI message”.
The Applicant’s only argument with respect to LI was: “Li fails to make up for the shortcoming of Wang”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Li clearly teaches that “The SDI SEI message may be used to indicate which primary layers are associated with an auxiliary layer when auxiliary information is present in a bitstream. For example, the SDI SEI message may include one or more syntax elements 1374 to indicate which primary layers are associated with the auxiliary layer when the auxiliary information is present in the bitstream.”
Further, in paragraph [0202], Li clearly teaches “However, in one coded video sequence (CVS) 1366, either all pictures 1364 are frames or all pictures 1364 are fields. The CVS 1366 is a coded video sequence for every coded layer video sequence (CLVS) in the video bitstream 1350. Notably, the CVS 1366 and the CLVS are the same when the video bitstream 1350 includes a single layer. The CVS 1366 and the CLVS are only different when the video bitstream 1350 includes multiple layers.”.
The Examiner introduced Li’s paragraph [0202] to show that Wang is relevant to the CVS containing SDI SEI message. In other words, the combination or Wang and Li clearly teaches the claimed limitations. The Applicant should also note that Li clearly teaches scalability dimension information in [0187].
The Applicant is reminded that scalable coding is considered as coding levels of resolutions, according to a quality dimension. In other words, the Applicant scalability dimension information can be considered resolution level information. Also, note that scalability in our case is nothing but multi-layered or multi-resolution. In other words, scalability dimension information is a multi-layered/multi-resolution information.
It is the Examiner’s belief that Applicant’s arguments were addressed. A rejection will be provided below in order to indicate where the prior art of record meets the claimed language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 13, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US Patent Application Publication no. 2022/0103867) in view of Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2022/0337853).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a method for processing video data (See Wang [0004]), comprising: determining, for a conversion between a video and a bitstream of the video (See Abstract), that a scalability dimension information (SDI) supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message provides SDI for each layer in a current coded video sequence (CVS) of the video; and performing the conversion based on the message (See Wang [0005]-[0007] and [0144] and [0174] for the SDI).
NOTE: The Examiner considers that the scaling factors for the different pictures may provide the scalability dimension information (SDI) with the different layers as disclosed in [0270]. (Wang [0174 discloses “In one example, the semantics of the DRAP indication SEI message are changed such that the SEI message can be applied to multi-layer bitstreams”).
It is noted that Wang does not specifically refer to an SDI SEI message as specified in the claim.
However, Li teaches determines a conversion between a video an a bitstream wherein the conversion is based on the SDI SEI message, (See Li [0208]), wherein the current CVS contains SDI SEI message (See Li [0206] and [0208] where the CVS is taught in [0202] “However, in one coded video sequence (CVS) 1366, either all pictures 1364 are frames or all pictures 1364 are fields. The CVS 1366 is a coded video sequence for every coded layer video sequence (CLVS) in the video bitstream 1350.”).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Wang to incorporate Li’s teachings to perform conversion based on SDI SEI message. The motivation for performing such a modification in Wang is to include one or more syntax elements to indicate when the auxiliary information is present in the bitstream as taught by Li.
Regarding claim 8, Wang discloses an apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon (See Wang’s Abstract, and Fig. 4, item 130b, [0009] and [0302]), wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor cause the processor to: determine, for a conversion between a video and a bitstream of the video (See Abstract), that a scalability dimension information (SDI) supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message provides SDI for each layer in a current coded video sequence (CVS) of the video; and performing the conversion based on the message (See Wang [0005]-[0007] and [0144] for the SDI).
NOTE: The Examiner considers that the scaling factors for the different pictures may provide the scalability dimension information (SDI) with the different layers as disclosed in [0270]. (Wang [0174 discloses “In one example, the semantics of the DRAP indication SEI message are changed such that the SEI message can be applied to multi-layer bitstreams”).
It is noted that Wang does not specifically refer to an SDI SEI message as specified in the claim.
However, Li teaches determines a conversion between a video an a bitstream wherein the conversion is based on the SDI SEI message wherein the current CVS contains SDI SEI message (See Li [0208]), wherein the current CVS contains SDISEI message (See Li [0206] and [0208] where the CVS is taught in [0202] “However, in one coded video sequence (CVS) 1366, either all pictures 1364 are frames or all pictures 1364 are fields. The CVS 1366 is a coded video sequence for every coded layer video sequence (CLVS) in the video bitstream 1350.”).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Wang to incorporate Li’s teachings to perform conversion based on SDI SEI message. The motivation for performing such a modification in Wang is to include one or more syntax elements to indicate when the auxiliary information is present in the bitstream as taught by Li.
As per claim 13, Wang discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that cause a processor (See Wang’s Abstract, and Fig. 4, item 130b, [0009] and [0302]) to determine, for a conversion between a video and a bitstream of the video, that a scalability dimension information (SDI) supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message provides SDI for each layer in a current coded video sequence (CVS) of the video; and performing the conversion based on the message (See Wang [0005]-[0007] and [0144] for the SDI).
NOTE: The Examiner considers that the scaling factors for the different pictures may provide the scalability dimension information (SDI) with the different layers as disclosed in [0270]. (Wang [0174 discloses “In one example, the semantics of the DRAP indication SEI message are changed such that the SEI message can be applied to multi-layer bitstreams”).
It is noted that Wang does not specifically refer to an SDI SEI message as specified in the claim.
However, Li teaches determines a conversion between a video an a bitstream wherein the conversion is based on the SDI SEI message wherein the current CVS contains SDI SEI message (See Li [0208]), wherein the current CVS contains SDISEI message (See Li [0206] and [0208] where the CVS is taught in [0202] “However, in one coded video sequence (CVS) 1366, either all pictures 1364 are frames or all pictures 1364 are fields. The CVS 1366 is a coded video sequence for every coded layer video sequence (CLVS) in the video bitstream 1350.”).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Wang to incorporate Li’s teachings to perform conversion based on SDI SEI message. The motivation for performing such a modification in Wang is to include one or more syntax elements to indicate when the auxiliary information is present in the bitstream as taught by Li.
Regarding claim 18, Wang discloses a method for storing a bitstream of a video comprising (See Wang’s Abstract, and Fig. 4, item 130b, [0009] and [0302]), wherein the method comprises: determining that a scalability dimension information (SDI) supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message provides SDI for each layer in a current coded video sequence (CVS) of the video (See Wang [0005]-[0007] and [0144] for the SDI); and generating the bitstream of the video message (See Wang [0147]. (Wang [0174] discloses “In one example, the semantics of the DRAP indication SEI message are changed such that the SEI message can be applied to multi-layer bitstreams”); storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer readable medium (See Wang [0009]).
It is noted that Wang does not specifically refer to an SDI SEI message as specified in the claim.
However, Li teaches determines a conversion between a video an a bitstream wherein the conversion is based on the SDI SEI message wherein the current CVS contains SDI SEI message (See Li [0208]), wherein the current CVS contains SDISEI message (See Li [0206] and [0208] where the CVS is taught in [0202] “However, in one coded video sequence (CVS) 1366, either all pictures 1364 are frames or all pictures 1364 are fields. The CVS 1366 is a coded video sequence for every coded layer video sequence (CLVS) in the video bitstream 1350.”).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Wang to incorporate Li’s teachings to perform conversion based on SDI SEI message. The motivation for performing such a modification in Wang is to include one or more syntax elements to indicate when the auxiliary information is present in the bitstream as taught by Li.
As per claims 4, 11, 16, and 20, most of the limitations of these claims have been noted in the above rejection of claims 1, 8 and 13. In addition, Wang further discloses wherein all SDI SEI messages in the current CVS must have a same content (See Wang [0141]). The Applicant should note that Wang also provides the CVS as noted in [231] “The bitstream may include a sequence of bits that form a coded representation of the video data”.
As per claims 6-7, most of the limitations of these claims have been noted in the above rejection of claims 1, 8 and 13. In addition, Wang further discloses wherein the conversion includes encoding the video into the bitstream (See Wang’s Abstract, [0004], [0170]), and wherein the conversion includes decoding the video from the bitstream (See Wang’s Abstract, [0005] and [0123]).
6. Claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US Patent Application Publication no. 2022/0103867) in view of Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2022/0337853) as applied to claims 1, 8, 13 and 19 above, and further in view of McCarthy (US Patent Application Publication no. 2021/0049747).
Regarding claims 3, 10, 15 and 19, most of the limitations of these claims have been noted in the above rejection of claims 1, 8, 13 and 19.
It is noted that the combination of Wang and Li is silent about wherein the SDI SEI message is present in any AU of the current CVS as specified in the claims.
However, McCarthy teaches video processing wherein, when the SDI SEI message is present in any AU of the current CVS as specified in the claims (See McCarthy [0102]-[0103]).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying the combination of Wang and Li to incorporate McCarthy’s teachings wherein video processing wherein, when the SDI SEI message is present in any AU of the current CVS, the SDI SEI message must be present in a first AU of the current CVS. The motivation for performing such a modification in Wang is to maintain the best quality level of the coded video sequence as suggested in McCarthy [0101]-[0103].
As per claims 5, 12 and 17, most of the limitations of these claims have been noted in the above rejection of claims 1, 12 and 13.
It is noted that the although combination of Wang and Li teaches an SDI SEI message (See Li [0208]), it is silent about SEI message being in decoding order from a current access unit until a subsequent AU containing subsequent SEI as specified in the claims.
However, Mc Carthy teaches wherein the SDI SEI message persists in decoding order (See Wang’s Abstract) from a current access unit (AU) until a subsequent AU containing a subsequent SDI SEI message (See McCArthy [0105]-[0107]).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Wang to provide McCarthy’s teachings wherein the SDI SEI message persists in decoding order from a current access unit (AU) until a subsequent AU containing a subsequent SDI SEI message. The motivation for performing such a modification in Wang is to maintain the best quality level of the coded video sequence.
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIMS S PHILIPPE whose telephone number is (571)272-7336. The examiner can normally be reached Maxi Flex.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/GIMS S PHILIPPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424