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
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the references do not teach “determining, using a picture header syntax element, and for all slices of a coded picture, whether the slices are B, P, and/or I type, the picture header syntax element being coded using an unsigned integer and included in a slice layer raw byte sequence payload network abstraction layer unit.”
Examiner disagrees, Chen discloses:
11. and under similar rationales 1. 20. A method of encoding video data, the method comprising:
header syntax element is to be coded using an unsigned integer and included in a slice layer raw byte sequence payload network abstraction layer unit (0071-3; 0158; 0170-3; 0215-7); encoding video data in a video bitstream and including a coded picture of the picture based on types of slices (0071-3; 0215-7)
Chen does not explicitly disclose the following, however Paluri teaches determining a picture header syntax element, and for all slices of a picture, that indicates whether the slices are B, P, and/or I type, the picture header syntax element is to be coded (Pg 23 sections 4. and 5.; Pg 25 second par.; Pg 25-26 last 2 par.; pg. 29 last 2 par.- pg. 30 2 par.; Pg 31 first 4 par); encoding video data in a video bitstream and including a coded picture of the picture based on types of slices indicated by the picture header syntax element, and for the coded picture, only related syntax elements are coded, and when all slices of the coded picture are indicated as including intra-prediction, no inter-prediction syntax elements are coded (Pg 23 sections 4. and 5.; Pg 25 second par.; Pg 25-26 last 2 par.; pg. 29 last 2 par.- pg. 30 2 par.; Pg 31 first 4 par);
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 generate the image information in which the syntax element necessary for the intra-frame slice is excluded or omitted and only the syntax element necessary for the inter-frame slice is included in the picture header (Paluri Pg 25 second par)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11902584. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Current
Patent ‘584
11. and under similar rationales 1. 20. An apparatus for decoding video data, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store computer program code; and at least one processor configured to access the at least one memory and operate according to the computer program code, the computer program code comprising:
indicating code configured to cause the at least one processor to indicate, via a syntax element, types of slices for all slices of a coded picture, the syntax element being coded using an unsigned integer; and decoding code configured to decode the video data based on the types of slices indicated via the syntax element.
Amendment basically included 12 and 13
12. and 2. The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the indicating code is configured to indicate the types of slices such that, for the coded picture, only related syntax elements are coded.
13. and 3. The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the indicating code is configured to indicate the types of slices such that when all slices of the coded picture are indicated as including intraprediction, no inter-prediction syntax elements are coded.
14. and 4. The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the indicating code is configured to indicate the types of slices such that picture header related syntax elements are included in a slice layer raw byte sequence payload network abstraction layer unit; and a flag is used to indicate the presence of the picture header related syntax elements in the slice layer raw byte sequence payload network abstraction layer unit.
15. and 5. The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the indicating code is configured to indicate the types of slices such that the types of the slices may be inferred from a decoded access unit delimiter value.
16. and 6. The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the indicating code is configured to indicate the types of slices such that the types of the slices may be inferred when signaled in high level syntax.
17. and 7. The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the indicating code is configured to indicate the types of slices such that the types of the slices may be inferred based on a number of rectangular slices in the coded picture.
18. and 8. The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the indicating code is configured such that the syntax element is a 0-th order Exp-Golomb-coded syntax element.
19. and 9. The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the indicating code is configured such that the syntax element is a 2 bit syntax element configurable with three statuses.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the syntax element is a 2 bit syntax element configurable with four statuses.
9. An apparatus for coding or encoding video data, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store computer program code; and at least one processor configured to access the at least one memory and operate according to the computer program code, the computer program code comprising:
indicating code configured to cause the at least one processor to indicate, with picture header a syntax element, and for all slices included in a corresponding coded picture, whether the slices are B, P, and/or I type slices, the syntax element being coded using an unsigned integer, the picture header syntax element indicating whether syntax elements related to intra slice are to be coded or inter slice are to be coded, and encoding or decoding code configured to cause the at least one processor to encode or decode the video data based on types of slices indicated via the syntax element,
wherein the indicating code is configured to cause the at least one processor to indicate the types of slices such that, for the coded picture, based on a value of the picture header syntax element being a first value, only related intra-prediction syntax elements are coded, and based on the value of the picture header syntax element being a second value, only related inter-prediction syntax elements are coded, and wherein the indicating code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to indicate the types of slices such that, based on the picture header syntax element being the first value, no inter-prediction syntax elements are coded, and wherein based the picture header syntax element being the second value, no intra-prediction syntax are coded.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein picture header related syntax elements are included in a slice layer raw byte sequence payload network abstraction layer unit, and a flag is used to indicate a presence of the picture header related syntax elements in the slice layer raw byte sequence payload network abstraction layer unit.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the types of the slices may be inferred from a decoded access unit delimiter value.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the types of the slices may be inferred when signaled in high level syntax.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the types of the slices may be inferred based on a number of rectangular slices in the coded picture.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the syntax element is a 0-th order Exp-Golomb-coded syntax element.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the syntax element is a 2 bit syntax element configurable with three statuses.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the syntax element is a 2 bit syntax element configurable with four statuses.
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Chen et al. US 2014/0198181.
In regard to claim 20, it is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein a bitstream generated by acts. Significantly, the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium is NOT implementing any actual method; no instructions/steps are being executed. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data output from and/or generated by a series of acts. In other words, these claims are directed to a mere machine-readable medium storing data content (a bitstream generated by a method).
Applicant therefore seeks to patent the storage of a bitstream in the abstract. In other words, the claim seeks to patent the content of the information (bitstream comprising video information) and not the process itself. Moreover, this stored bitstream does not impose any definitive physical organization on the data as there is no functional relationship between the bitstream and the storage medium. In conclusion, the identified claim and any claims depending therefrom are directed to mere data content (bitstream generated by a series of acts) stored as a bitstream on a computer-readable storage medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, the Examiner found and continues to find that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, this claim is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. Therefore, the claim is anticipated by
Chen, which discloses
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored therein a bitstream comprising video information generated by acts (0270; 0048)
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, 4, 6, 8, 11, 14, 20, 23, 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. US 2014/0198181 from IDS in view of Paluri et al. CN-114762349-A (translation referenced and checked against 62/931170 for priority)
Chen discloses:
11. and under similar rationales 1. 20. A method of encoding video data, the method comprising:
header syntax element is to be coded using an unsigned integer and included in a slice layer raw byte sequence payload network abstraction layer unit (0071-3; 0158; 0170-3; 0215-7); encoding video data in a video bitstream and including a coded picture of the picture based on types of slices (0071-3; 0215-7)
Chen does not explicitly disclose the following, however Paluri teaches determining a picture header syntax element, and for all slices of a picture, that indicates whether the slices are B, P, and/or I type, the picture header syntax element is to be coded (Pg 23 sections 4. and 5.; Pg 25 second par.; Pg 25-26 last 2 par.; pg. 29 last 2 par.- pg. 30 2 par.; Pg 31 first 4 par); encoding video data in a video bitstream and including a coded picture of the picture based on types of slices indicated by the picture header syntax element, and for the coded picture, only related syntax elements are coded, and when all slices of the coded picture are indicated as including intra-prediction, no inter-prediction syntax elements are coded (Pg 23 sections 4. and 5.; Pg 25 second par.; Pg 25-26 last 2 par.; pg. 29 last 2 par.- pg. 30 2 par.; Pg 31 first 4 par);
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 generate the image information in which the syntax element necessary for the intra-frame slice is excluded or omitted and only the syntax element necessary for the inter-frame slice is included in the picture header (Paluri Pg 25 second par)
14. and 4. And 23. The apparatus of claim 11, wherein a flag is used to indicate a presence of the related syntax elements in the slice layer raw byte sequence payload network abstraction layer unit (0071-3; 0215-7).
Chen does not explicitly disclose the following, however Paluri teaches indicate the types of slices with picture header a syntax elements (Pg 23 sections 4. and 5.; Pg 25 second par.; Pg 25-26 last 2 par.; Pg 31 first 4 par);
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 generate the image information in which the syntax element necessary for the intra-frame slice is excluded or omitted and only the syntax element necessary for the inter-frame slice is included in the picture header (Paluri Pg 25 second par)
6. The method of claim 11, wherein the types of the slices are inferred when signaled in high level syntax (0160; 0172; 0181).
8. and 26. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the single syntax element is a 0-th order Exp-Golomb-coded syntax element (0171; 0212).
25. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 20, wherein the types of the slices are inferred when signaled in high level syntax (0160; 0172; 0181); or wherein the types of the slices are inferred based on a number of rectangular slices in the coded picture (0060; 0066-8).
Claim(s) 5, 16 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Paluri in view of Ryu et al. US 2014/0036999 from IDS
Chen discloses:
5. 16. and 24. The apparatus of claim 1,
Chen does not explicitly disclose the following, however Ryu teaches wherein the types of the slices are inferred from a decoded access unit delimiter value. (0141-3; table 9).
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 the AU delimiter may include a picture type, a priority identifier, and/or RBSP trailing bits and the picture type may indicate the type of picture following the AU delimiter, such as an I-picture/slice, a P-picture/slice, and/or a B-picture/slice (Ryu 0142)
Claim 7, 9, 10, 17 and 19 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Paluri in view of Chen et al. US 2012/0189053 hereinafter Chen053 from IDS.
Chen discloses:
17. and 7. The method of claim 11, however Chen053 teaches wherein the setting code is configured such that the picture header syntax element is a 2 bit syntax element configurable with three statuses. (0021-3; 0038-44).
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 have syntax elements defined to indicate construction information for the reference picture lists are encoded and signaled to a decoding device in a slice header of a coded video slice (Chen053 0021)
19. and 9. The method of claim 11,
Chen does not explicitly disclose the following, however Chen053 teaches wherein the setting code is configured such that the picture header syntax element is a 2 bit syntax element configurable with four statuses. (0021-3; 0038-44; as there are 2 bits which can represent four values (0-3) it would be obvious to include a forth status if desired).
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 have syntax elements defined to indicate construction information for the reference picture lists are encoded and signaled to a decoding device in a slice header of a coded video slice (Chen053 0021)
10. The method of claim 1,
Chen does not explicitly disclose the following, however Chen053 teaches wherein the syntax element is a 2 bit syntax element configurable with four statuses. (0021-3; 0038-44).
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 have syntax elements defined to indicate construction information for the reference picture lists are encoded and signaled to a decoding device in a slice header of a coded video slice (Chen053 0021)
27. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 20,
Chen does not explicitly disclose the following, however Chen053 teaches wherein the picture header syntax element is a 2 bit syntax element configurable with any of three statuses four statuses. (0021-3; 0038-44; as there are 2 bits which can represent four values (0-3) it would be obvious to include a forth status if desired).
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 have syntax elements defined to indicate construction information for the reference picture lists are encoded and signaled to a decoding device in a slice header of a coded video slice (Chen053 0021)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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 on 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