Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/15/2026 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 11-12 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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. 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.
6. Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8-9 and 12-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DESHPANDE et al. (US 2023/0048070) hereinafter “DESHPANDE” in view of TSUKUBA et al. (US 2017/0019673) hereinafter “TSUKUBA”.
As per claim 1, DESHPANDE discloses a method of video processing, comprising:
performing a first conversion between a plurality of video layers of a video and a bitstream of the video (encoders and decoders taught in FIGs. 5 and 6 inherently perform conversion between a video and a bitstream, wherein the video comprises a plurality of video layers as taught in paragraph 0064),
wherein the bitstream comprises a plurality of output layer sets (OLSs), each comprising one or more of the plurality of video layers (paragraphs 0128-0130, 0421 and 0516-0517),
wherein the format rule specifies that a number syntax element is included in a video parameter set for the bitstream indicative of a number of profile-tier-level (PTL) syntax structures coded in the video parameter set (e.g., vps_num_ptls taught in video_parameter_set() syntax structure of tables 11A and 11B, paragraph 0490),
wherein the format rule further specifies that:
during encoding, an index syntax element indicative of an index to a PTL syntax structure is excluded from the video parameter set for the bitstream in case that a value of the number syntax element is equal to zero (tables 11A and 11B show that one of the conditions to signal ols_ptl_idx[i] is vps_num_ptls >1; thus, in the case vps_num_ptls =0, ols_ptl_idx[i] is not signaled, which means excluded from the video parameter set for the bitstream), and
during decoding, a value of the index syntax element is inferred to be zero in case that the index syntax element is not present in the bitstream (paragraph 0496, the syntax structure may not signal only some of the syntax elements: vps_num_ptls, pt_present_flag[i], pt_max_temporal_id[i], vps_ptl_byte_alignment_zero_bit, ols_ptl_idx[i], profile_tier_level(pt_present_flag[i], ptl_max_temporal_id[i]). When one or more of these syntax elements is not signalled in this case, its value will be inferred. See also paragraphs 0511-012 and 0518-0520, When ols_ptl_idx[i] is not present… ols_ptl_idx[i] is inferred to be equal to 0),
However, DESHPANDE does not explicitly disclose wherein the format rule further specifies that, for a layer i, where i is an integer, the bitstream includes a set of first syntax element which is used to derive a first variable indicating whether the layer i is used as an output layer in at least one of the plurality of OLSs, wherein the format rule further specifies that the bitstream includes a set of third syntax elements which is used to derive a second variable indicating whether the layer i is used as a reference layer for at least one of the plurality of video layers, and wherein the format rule disallows values of the first variable and the second variable both equal to 0, and wherein disallowing the values of the first variable and the second variable both equal to 0 indicates that no layer that is neither a direct reference layer of any other layer nor an output layer of at least one OLS.
In the same field of endeavor, TSUKUBA discloses wherein the format rule further specifies that, for a layer i, where i is an integer, the bitstream includes a set of first syntax element which is used to derive a first variable indicating whether the layer i is used as an output layer in at least one of the plurality of OLSs (paragraph 0315, The output layer information is a set of flags (OutputLayerFlag[i][j]) indicating whether each layer which is included in a layer set and is associated with an output layer set is set as an output target layer. The output layer set information decoding means in the embodiment sets output layer information OutputLayerFlag[i][j] from the decoded syntax element output_layer_flag[i][j]. output_layer_flag[i][j] is a flag indicating whether or not the j-th layer included in the output layer set i is set as an output target layer), wherein the format rule further specifies that the bitstream includes a set of third syntax elements which is used to derive a second variable indicating whether the layer i is used as a reference layer for at least one of the plurality of video layers (paragraph 0090, The decoding layer ID list deriving means derives a flag refLayerFlag by the processes of SB03 to SB05. The flag refLayerFlag indicates whether or not a layer (target layer j) of a layer set associated with the output layer set is a dependency layer (direct reference layer or indirect reference layer. See also LayerUsedAsRefLayerFlag[ i ] taught by DESHPANDE) of a target output layer TargetOptLayerIdList[k] which is a layer of which the output layer flag is 1), and wherein the format rule disallows values of the first variable and the second variable both equal to 0, and wherein disallowing the values of the first variable and the second variable both equal to 0 indicates that no layer that is neither a direct reference layer of any other layer nor an output layer of at least one OLS (paragraphs 0396 and 0398, In a case where the output layer flag OutputLayerFlag[TargetOLSIdx][j] of the target layer j is 1 (true), or the target layer dependency flag refLayerFlag of the target layer j is 1 (true), Steps SB08 and SB09 are performed… In the process, a layer of non-output (output layer flag OutputLayerFlag[TargetOLSIdx][j] is 0) and non-dependency (refLayerFlag is 0) is excluded. That is, the decoding layer ID list deriving means includes all layers (output layers or dependency layers) in the target decoding layer ID list, excluding a layer which is a non-output and non-reference layer, in the output layer set TargetOptLayerSet) is excluded).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the teachings of DESHPANDE in view of TSUKUBA, by omitting processing of a non-output and non-reference layer in an output layer set; thus, reducing processing amount and memory size (TSUKUBA, paragraph 0023). This rationale applies to all combination of DESHPANDE and TSUKUBA used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
As per claim 4, DESHPANDE discloses wherein the format rule further specifies a relationship between occurrence of the number of the PTL syntax structures in the video parameter set for the bitstream and a byte alignment syntax field in the video parameter set (see lines 40-47 in table 11A).
As per claim 5, DESHPANDE discloses wherein the format rule specifies that, at least one PTL syntax structure is included in the video parameter set, and due to inclusion of the at least one PTL syntax structure, one or more instances of the byte alignment syntax field are included in the video parameter set (see lines 40-47 in table 11A, wherein “one or more instances of the byte alignment syntax field are included in the video parameter set” is interpreted as one or more syntax elements related to the byte alignment syntax field are included in the video parameter).
As per claim 6, DESHPANDE discloses wherein the byte alignment syntax field is one bit, and wherein each of the one or more instances of the byte alignment syntax field has a value 0 (see lines 40-47 in table 11A and paragraph 0431, wherein “one or more instances of the byte alignment syntax field has a value 0” is interpreted as one or more syntax elements related to the byte alignment syntax field have a value 0).
As per claim 8, TSUKUBA discloses wherein the format rule specifies that, the first variable for the layer i being equal to zero, means that the layer i is not used as an output layer in any of the plurality of OLSs (paragraph 0398).
As per claim 9, TSUKUBA discloses wherein the format rule specifies that, in case that the first variable for the layer i is equal to zero, the bitstream excludes a set of second syntax elements indicative of decoded picture buffer parameters for the layer I (FIG. 15(b); paragraph 0354, syntax SYNDPB05 to SYNDPB10 are signaled for all output layer sets with (i=1; i<NumOutputLayerSets, i++) except for i=0, which means except for non-output layers (OutputLayerFlag[i][j]=0)).
As per claim 10, TSUKUBA discloses wherein the first variable is a one-bit flag, denoted as LayerUsedAsOutputLayerFlag (i.e., OutputLayerFlag), and wherein the first variable is determined based on iteratively checking, for each of the plurality of video layers, a value of a third variable indicative of a relationship between the plurality of video layers and the plurality of OLSs (paragraph 0318).
As per claims 13-14, arguments analogous to those applied for the first limitation of claim 1 are applicable for claims 13-14.
As per claims 15 and 17, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 1 are applicable for claims 15 and 17; in addition, DESHPANDE teaches a processor and a non-transitory memory with instruction thereon for executing the claimed method (paragraph 0596)
As per claim 16, arguments analogous to those applied for claims 4-6 are applicable for claim 16.
As per claim 18, arguments analogous to those applied for claims 4-6 are applicable for claim 18.
As per claim 19, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 1 are applicable for claim 19. In addition, DESHPANDE discloses storing a bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (paragraph 0573-0574).
As per claim 20, arguments analogous to those applied for claims 4-6 are applicable for claim 20.
As per claim 21, DESHPANDE discloses wherein the format rule further specifies that, for an OLS having a single layer, the PTL syntax structure that indicates a profile, a tier and a level for the OLS is included in the video parameter set for the bitstream, and the PTL syntax structure for the OLS is also included in a sequence parameter set for the bitstream (paragraphs 0492-0493; see also paragraph 0418).
As per claim 22, DESHPANDE discloses wherein the number of PTL syntax structures is equal to a value of the number syntax element plus one (paragraph 0143, vps_num_ptls specifies the number of profile_tier_level( ) syntax structures in the VPS paragraph 0147, Ols_ptl_idx[I] specifies the index, to the list of profile_tier_level( ) syntax structures in the VPS, of the profile_tier_level( ) syntax structure that applies to the i-th OLS. When present, the value of ols_ptl_idx[I] shall be in the range of 0 to vps_num_ptls−1, inclusive. Thus, the number of profile_tier_level( ) syntax in the list is (vps_num_ptls−1)+1, which is vps_num_ptls as taught above).
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US 20220345745, US 20140119437)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED JEBARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 09:00am-06:00pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached on 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.
/MOHAMMED JEBARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights