DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/26/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
Given the large number of references submitted with the Information Disclosure Statements in this case, without citation to relevant portions or explanation of relevance to the present claims, only a cursory consideration has been afforded to this disclosure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the newly amended language of Claim 1, Applicant argues: “MFA, HEVC Overview, and Chien fail to render obvious claims 1-5, 9, 11, and 13-20 because MF A, HEVC Overview, and Chien do not impose constraints on a value of a fourth syntax element such that the fourth syntax element is equal to a first value (i.e., 0) in response to the third syntax element being zero or the first subpicture identifier syntax element being one, and is equal to a second value (i.e., 1) in response to the third syntax element being one and the first subpicture identifier syntax element being zero.”
Examiner notes the updated reasons for rejection below. Examiner further notes that Applicant broadly claims a concept that syntaxes described as first … seventh can have a logical data dependence in the context of coding video. This concept is conventional for signal encoding.
Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant naming a claimed element the first syntax (or a syntax by another number) neither limits the claim to a step or structure readily recognizable in the art, nor serves to distinguish the substance of the claims from that of the prior art. Prior art provides an example of employing indicators corresponding to such syntaxes in a substantively identical application. Prior art also indicates that multiple variations in syntax are possible without deviating from the functionality of signaling variables in video coding.
Critically, there is no indication in the Specification or the arguments that the claimed choices of how to order the variables in the bitstream would solve a long existing problem in the prior art or yield unexpected results. Examiner suggests directing the claims to features that are supported by such evidence. This could provide clarity with respect to prior art and Graham v. Deere factors.
In rejecting claim 10, the Office Action cites HEVC Overview at column 1, paragraph 3 on page 1861 as purportedly disclosing the above-emphasized limitations, and notes that this is a "conventional operation." However, for the following reasons, the Applicant respectfully disagrees. At column 1, paragraphs 3-4 on page 1861, HEVC Overview merely mentions copying the information found into the relevant decoder data structures, following the reference in the PPS to the relevant SPS, and following the reference in SPS to the relevant VPS. However, HEVC Overview fails to disclose the relationships between the fourth syntax element, the third syntax element …”
Examiner notes that Applicant’s argument merely states a conclusion that the cited prior art does not teach the claim elements without offering an explanation or an understanding of the scope of the fourth syntax element and the third syntax element in the claims. How do numbers three and four lead to a specific improvement or unexpected results?
Applicant further argues regarding the newly amended language of Claim 1: “Accordingly, HEVC Overview fails to disclose or suggest in which situation the fourth syntax element ( or its purported analog) needs to be equal to 0 and in which situation the fourth syntax element needs to be equal to 1, as required in claim 1.”
Examiner notes that Applicant fails to explain why it would be unusual or non-obvious for a flag in HEVC to have a value of 0 or 1. See updated reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “Further, the Applicant respectfully notes that there is no evidence ( other than the Office Action's assertion) that indicates that the above-emphasized features of claim 1 are a "conventional operation." Indeed, claim 1 imposes limitations regarding how to determine the value of the fourth syntax element, … This is not conventional, and is also not disclosed by the cited prior art; accordingly, the Applicant respectfully submits that these limitations go beyond that which is conventional, and in fact require inventive skill, which also suggests that the present claims are not obvious. AAPA and Chien fail to satisfy the deficiencies of HEVC Overview.”
Examiner notes that “fourth syntax element” is a generic label rather than a problem long unsolved in the art. While Applicant is allowed to be his own lexicographer in describing claim structures, Examiner must reject the claim based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed elements and not based on the presence of Applicant’s exact phrasing. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 904.01(a). Other than creative numbering, the claims appear to offer a conventional solution to a non-specific problem, and they closely follow an industry standard HEVC. See updated reasons for rejection below.
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 9, 11, 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant admitted prior art in the Specification (“AAPA”) in view of “Overview of HEVC High-Level Syntax and Reference Picture Management,” IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS FOR VIDEO TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 22, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2012 (“HEVC Overview”) and in view of US 20160261868 to Chien (“Chien”).
Note that Specification Paragraph 30 refers to HEVC and VVC as prior art standards that serve the bases for the proposed invention. HEVC and Chien are cited as explaining relevant features of the HEVC and thus the AAPA, and HEVC Overview publication is an overview of the HEVC standard syntax.
Regarding Claim 1: “A method of video processing, comprising:
performing a conversion between a video comprising a plurality of pictures and a bitstream of the video, (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, this element includes encoding or decoding under the industry video coding standards. See original Claims 8-9. Prior art describes this under the “H.264/MPEG-4 Advanced Video Coding (AVC) and H.265/HEVC standards” AAPA, Specification, Paragraph 30. Also note that “"video coding" or "coding" may refer generically to video encoding and video decoding.” Chien, Paragraphs 33, 34.)
wherein a field indicating a number of sub pictures in each picture of a video sequence is conditionally signaled in a sequence parameter set (SPS) of the bitstream, and (“the latest VVC draft text, information of subpictures, includes sub picture layout (i.e., the number of subpictures for each picture and the position and size of each picture) and other sequence-level subpicture information, is signaled in the SPS” AAPA, Specification, Paragraphs 50 and Table 7.3.2.3.
Note that all signals in headers such as an SPS are conditionally signaled based on other signals, video content, and coding parameters: “In H.264/AVC as well as in HEVC, SPSs contain information which applies to all slices of a coded video sequence.” As a pertinent example, conditions can be set by “enabling flags for certain tools within a profile, and associated coding tool parameters in case the tool is enabled;” HEVC Overview, Page 1861, Column 1, first paragraph.)
a bitwidth of the field is based on a value of the number of sub pictures, and … wherein the field is an unsigned integer 0-th order exponential Golomb (Exp-Golomb) coded syntax element with a left bit first,” (Note that this element describes the “sps_num_subpics_minus1 … ue(v)” field as used in the original Claim 2 and Specification, First embodiment, Table 7.3.2.3 is also disclosed as a feature of a prior art VVC in AAPA, Table 7.3.2.3. Page 23 of the Specification indicates that this field has not been modified from the original standard. Cumulatively, “The HEVC working draft defines 'ue(v)' coded syntax elements as unsigned integer Exp-Golomb-coded syntax elements with the left bit first.” Chien, Paragraph 32. See statement of motivation below.)
wherein the bitstream conforms to a first format rule, and … wherein the first format rule specifies that each of identifier variables of one or more subpictures of the picture is derived based on a first subpicture identifier syntax element in an SPS referred to by the picture or a second subpicture identifier syntax element in a picture parameter set (PPS) referred to by the picture,” (“In the latest VVC draft text … A list of subpicture IDs, one for each subpicture, may be explicitly signalled, e.g., in the SPS or in the PPS.” AAPA, Specification, Page 50. See similarly in Chien, Paragraph 32, and for particular syntax examples, see HEVC Overview, Page 1861, first column, fourth paragraph and statements of motivation below.)
Where necessary, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of HEVC and VVC standards in AAPA with the details of HEVC operation in HEVC Overview and Chien, in order to understand the pertinent parts of the HEVC and VVC standards.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
wherein when a value of a third syntax element indicates that a mapping between the identifier variables of the one or more subpictures and the one or more subpictures is explicitly signalled,” (For example, the above signalling is independent of a value of “sps_subpic_id [i]” which is subsequent in the conditional statement in AAPA, Specification, Table 7.3.2.3 on page 11.
Cumulatively, note that above signals may be naturally signaled independently of signals that pertain to another functionality or mapping in a different coding context or in another part of the bitstream: Examiner notes that it is a logical observation that a signal particular to subpictures would be signaled if subpicture signals are enabled (third signal) and independent of how the subpicture signals are encoded (fourth signal), whether they are encoded directly or by mapping to another parameter set. As a logical observation of how computer code operates, this would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the earliest priority date.
Cumulatively, this logic is part of the prior art standards: [1] The subpicture information can be coded as part of SPS: “In H.264/AVC as well as in HEVC, SPSs contain information which applies to all slices [subpictures] of a coded video sequence,” … [3] The signaling features can be enabled by: “3) enabling flags for certain tools within a profile, and associated coding tool parameters in case the tool is enabled;” … And [4] the format of the signal can be restricted without disabling the signal: “4) information restricting the flexibility of structures and transform coefficient coding;” See HEVC Overview, Page 1861, Column 1, first paragraph. See statement of motivation below.
Finally, the signaling convention of the prior art standards, is used in many different aspects of video coding and does not change merely by changing the signal names.)
a fourth syntax element in the PPS takes either a first value to indicate that the identifier variable of a subpicture is derived based on the first subpicture identifier syntax element, or a second value to indicate that the identifier variable of a subpicture is derived based on the second subpicture identifier syntax element, and (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the third syntax element being equal to 1, can signal the presence (or absence) of a fourth signal element that further indicates presence (or absence) of another element in another location. This is a conventional operation under HEVC: “the parameter set activation can be as simple as accessing the PPS tables based on information in the slice header [third syntax element in the slice indicating that there is a further mapping in the PPS], … copying the information found into the relevant decoder data structures [explicitly signaling the fourth element as a further reference / mapping], …” HEVC Overview, Page 1861, first column, third paragraph. See statement of motivation below.)
wherein the fourth syntax element is equal to the first value in response to the third syntax element being zero or the first subpicture identifier syntax element being one, (This element is not limited to particular signals, rather it broadly embodies a conventional use of indicators under HEVC. Prior art provides a relevant example: if the subpic_ids is not explicitly signalled [corresponding to a state of 1] or the subpicture id is already coded in the SPS {indicated by a third syntax above], then the information does not need to be further coded in PPS as indicated by the subpic_ids_in_pps_flag [example fourth syntax in the PPS] being zero. All that is required is “[b] copying the information found into the relevant decoder data structures [explicitly signaling the fourth element as a further reference / mapping] “ HEVC Overview, Page 1861, first column, third paragraph. See statement of motivation below. Also, see above for the example of the third signal indicating supbic ID in the SPS in reference to AAPA, Specification, Table 7.3.2.3 on page 11. Of course, the claim is much broader than the example in the prior art)
wherein the fourth syntax element is equal to the second value in response to the third syntax element being one and the first subpicture identifier syntax element being zero, (This element broadly embodies a conventional use of indicators under HEVC. Prior art provides a relevant example: if the subpic_ids is explicitly signalled [corresponding to a state of 0] and the subpicture id indicates that it was signaled in the SPS [indicated by the third signal and not the PPS subject to the fourth signal], then the information does need to be further coded in PPS as indicated by the subpic_ids_in_pps_flag being one. This further requires that “[a] following the reference in the PPS to the relevant SPS [the fourth element signaling whether the information is in the PPS or in another header = not PPS], and following the reference in SPS to the relevant VPS [following the fourth reference to the end-variable in the PPS or to further references to the PPS and may continue in similar manner to VPS, and so on]” HEVC Overview, Page 1861, first column, third paragraph. See statement of motivation below. Also, see above for the example of the third signal indicating supbic ID in the SPS in reference to AAPA, Specification, Table 7.3.2.3 on page 11. Of course, the claim is much broader than the example in the prior art)
wherein the fourth syntax element being equal to the first value specifies that the mapping is not signalled in the PPS, and the fourth syntax element being equal to the second value specifies that the mapping is signalled in the PPS, and (This is part of a conventional operation under HEVC, if [a] the binary syntax indicates that the information is not in PPS the search continues to SPS or VPS (not PPS), otherwise if [b] the syntax indicates the information is in PPS, the information is copied: “[b] copying the information found into the relevant decoder data structures [explicitly signaling the fourth element as a further reference / mapping] … [a] following the reference in the PPS to the relevant SPS [the fourth element signaling whether the information is in the PPS or in another header = not PPS], and following the reference in SPS to the relevant VPS [following the fourth reference to the end-variable in the PPS or to further references to the PPS and may continue in similar manner to VPS, and so on]” HEVC Overview, Page 1861, first column, third paragraph. See statement of motivation below.)
wherein the first value is 0 and the second value is 1.” .” (Prior art teaches that control information is commonly coded as “flags indicating the use of, or presence of, certain tools or control information” at various levels of the video coding including SPS, PPS, VPS, and Slice levels. See HEVC Overview, Page 1861 paragraphs 1-4 and Fig. 3. As noted above, prior art uses binary indicators to determine if the required piece of information is present in a particular parameter set or not. See statement of motivation below.
Note that as a general definition of a binary flag in H.264 and HEVC, the value is either 0 or 1. See an example in HEVC Overview, Page 1863, first column, second paragraph. It is common for the binary flags to indicate a presence of certain control information as a value equal to ‘1’ and an absence of the control information as a value equal to ‘0.’ See HEVC Overview, Page 1863, first column, second paragraph and similar use of flags in compliance with HEVC and VVC standards as consistently described in Specification, Pages 10-14.
Cumulatively note, that Applicant’s mere choice of whether to use the value of 1 or 0 to indicate a particular control selection, is not sufficient to render the claim obvious over the prior art that performs the same selection using a binary flag.)
Where necessary, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the HEVC implemented methods of AAPA to implement HEVC and H.264 functions as taught in HEVC Overview, in order to format the video signal according to the HEVC video coding standard.
Also note that “each type of parameter set contains an extension mechanism, which allows extending the parameter set in future versions of HEVC without breaking backward compatibility” indicating that generally adding syntax elements to this format was foreseen by the standard.
Regarding Claim 2: “The method of claim 1, wherein when a flag specifying that a sub picture information is present for the video sequence, the field is signaled in the SPS.” (AAPA does not admit that this feature was a part of HEVC and VVC standards referenced by the Applicant. However, in HEVC and thus VVC, it is conventional to use “enabling flags for certain tools within a profile, and associated coding tool parameters in case the tool is enabled;” HEVC Overview, Page 1861, Column 1, first paragraph. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 3: “The method of claim 1, wherein the field is sps_num_subpics_minus1, and when the field is not signaled, a value of the field is inferred to be equal to 0.” (“The SPS, PPS, and slice header syntax and semantics in the latest VVC draft text that are most relevant to the inventions herein are as follows. … sps_num_subpics_minus1 plus 1 specifies the number of subpictures. … When not present, the value of sps_num_subpics_minus1 is inferred to be equal to 0.” AAPA, Specification, Paragraph 53 and Page 11.)
Regarding Claim 4: “The method of claim 1, wherein a first syntax element, which indicates whether each picture referring to a picture parameter set (PPS) can be partitioned, is included in the PPS of the bitstream before a set of syntax elements, in the PPS, indicative of identifiers of subpictures the picture.” (“The SPS, PPS, and slice header syntax and semantics in the latest VVC draft text that are most relevant to the inventions herein are as follows. … no_pic_partition_flag equal to 1 specifies that no picture partitioning applied to each picture referring to the PPS” AAPA, Specification, Paragraph 53 and Page 14.)
Regarding Claim 5: “The method of claim 4,
wherein a second syntax element, which indicates a number of the sub pictures in each picture referring to the PPS, is conditionally included in the PPS based on a value of the first syntax element, (See examples as “num _exp_ tile_ columns_ minus1 … num _exp_ tile_ rows_ minus1 … num_slices_in_pic_minus1 … single_slice_per_subpic_flag” in AAPA, Specification, Page 13.)
wherein the second syntax element is omitted in response to a value of the first syntax element indicating that no picture partitioning is applied to each picture referring to the PPS, and (Note that the second syntax elements are only present “if( !no_pic_partition_flag )” in AAPA, Specification, Page 13. Also, “When no pie partition_ flag is equal to 1, the value of nurn_slices_in_pic_minusl is inferred to be equal to 0.” AAPA, Specification, Page 15.)
wherein it is a requirement of bitstream conformance that a value of the second syntax element is equal to the field.” (“The value of num_slices_in_pic_minusl shall be in the range of 0 to MaxSlicesPerPicture -1” AAPA, Specification, Page 15.)
Regarding Claim 9: “The method of claim 1,”
Note that the claim language below uses computer language (HEVC syntax) to describe the same subject matter as claimed using the English language rejected in Claim 1. They are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1, according to the equivalency noted below:
wherein the identifier variables, denoted as SubpicldList[i], are derived as follows: … for( i = 0; i <= sps num subpics minusl; i++ ) … … wherein sps_num_subpics_minus1 plus 1 specifies a number of sub pictures in each picture (The syntax corresponds to the language “wherein the format rule specifies that each of identifier variables of one or more subpictures of the picture is derived based on a first subpicture identifier syntax element in a sequence parameter set (SPS)” which is addressed above. Here “i” is the “subpicture identifier syntax element”, “for“ indicates that “each” identifier variable is derived based on the “subpicture identifier syntax element” in the stated range, “sps_num_subpics_minus1” is an SPS parameter. Because sps_num_subpics_minus1 represents a digital count starting at ‘0’ (not at ‘1’), “sps_num_subpics_minus1 plus 1 specifies a number of sub pictures.”)
if( subpic_ids_explicitly signalled_flag ) … subpic_ids_explicitly_signalled_flag is the third syntax element, (This element corresponds to the language “the thrid syntax element being equal to the second value specifies that the mapping is signalled in the PPS” which is addressed in Claim 6 above.)
SubpicldList[i] = subpic_ids_in_pps_flag ? pps_subpic_id[i] : sps_subpic_id[i] … subpic_ids_in_pps_flag is the fourth syntax element, sps_subpic_id is the first subpicture identifier syntax element, and pps_subpic_id is the second subpicture identifier syntax element. (This element corresponds to the language “wherein the fourth syntax element equal to the first value specifies that the mapping is not signaled in the PPS, and the fourth syntax element equal to the second value specifies that the mapping is signaled in the PPS, wherein the first value is equal to 0 and the second value is equal to 1” which is addressed above. Here “SubpicidList[i]” is “a third syntax element in the PPS,” “pps_ subpic_id[i]” is “the second value specifies that the mapping is signaled in the PPS”, “sps_subpic_id[i]” is “the first value specifies that the mapping is not signaled in the PPS” because it is signaled in SPS.)
else SubpicldList[i] = i, (This element corresponds to the language “or a second subpicture identifier syntax element in a picture parameter set (PPS) referred to by the picture;” which is addressed above. Here “else” represents the “or” alternative and “SubpicldList[i] = i,” indicates that “second subpicture identifier syntax element in a picture parameter set (PPS) referred to by the picture.”)
See statements of motivation in Claims 1 and 6.
Regarding Claim 11: “The method of claim 1, wherein
the first format rule further specifies that the third syntax element is conditionally included in the SPS based on a value of a fifth syntax element indicating whether information of subpictures is included in the SPS,” (For example the fifth syntax element can be “sps_subpic_id [ i]” in AAPA, Specification, Table 7.3.2.3 on page 11. See treatment in Claim 1. Further, this claim is an example of “enabling flags for certain tools within a profile, and associated coding tool parameters in case the tool is enabled; … flags indicating the use of, or presence of, certain tools or control information …” HEVC Overview, Page 1861, first column, first and second paragraphs. As noted in Claim 1, if the data is not coded in PPS, SPS (fifth syntax element) is consulted, if not in SPS, then VPS is consulted and so on.)
wherein the first format rule further specifies that the value of the fifth syntax element is zero, which indicates that the information of the subpictures is omitted from the SPS and consequently each of pictures associated with the SPS is not split into multiple subpictures, and … based on the value being zero, the third syntax element is omitted from the SPS, and … wherein the first format rule further specifies that when the third syntax element is omitted, a value of the third syntax element inferred to be equal to 0.” (This corresponds to the prior art example: “if( sps subpics id signalling_present_ flag ) { … sps_subpic_id [ i]” AAPA, Specification, Table 7.3.2.3 on page 11 and as discussed in Claim 9 above. Cumulatively, see obviousness of 0/1 flag assignment in Claim 5 and flag dependencies in Claims 8 and 9.)
Regarding Claim 13: “The method of claim 12,
wherein the length corresponds to a number of bits used to represent an eighth syntax element indicating a subpicture identifier in the SPS, (AAPA provides an example of this number in Specification, Paragraph 53 and Table 7.3.2.3 on page 12: “The SPS, PPS, and slice header syntax and semantics in the latest VVC draft … sps_subpic_id_len_minus1”.)
a ninth syntax element indicating a subpicture identifier in a picture parameter set (PPS) if present, (“if( pps subpics id signalling_present_ flag) { … pps_subpic_id[ i]” in Specification, Paragraph 53 and Table 7.3.2.3 on page 11.)
and a tenth syntax element indicating a subpicture identifier in a slice header if present.” (“if( rect_slice flag && ! single slice per subpic flag) { … tile_idx_delta_present_flag” in Specification, Paragraph 53 and Table 7.3.2.3 on page 13.)
Further note that this is conventional in HEVC to communicate the “2) decoder operation point related information (profile, level, picture size, number sub-layers, and so on);” each number representing the maximum numerical length that is required to represent all identifiers (0 => number minus one) in the bitstream: HEVC Overview, Page 1861, Column 1, first paragraph and consistent with definitions in dependent Claim 25.)
Regarding Claim 14: “The method of claim 12, wherein the length is signalled by an eleventh syntax element sps_subpic_id_len_minus1 , a value of which plus 1 is equal to the length, and wherein a value of sps_subpic_id_len_minus1 is in a range of 0 to 15.” (“sps_subpic_id[ i] specifies that subpicture ID of the i-th subpicture. The length of the sps_subpic_id[ i] syntax element IS sps_subpic_id_len_minusl + 1 bits. When not present, and when sps subpic id present_ flag equal to 0, the value of sps subpic _id[ i] is inferred to be equal to i, for each I in the range of 0 to sps_num_subpics_minusl, inclusive … The value of sps_ subpic_id_len minusl shall be in the range of 0 to 15, inclusive.” AAPA, Specification, Paragraph 53 and Table 7.3.2.3 on pages 12-13.)
Regarding Claim 15: “The method of claim 12, wherein the seventh syntax element being equal to one specifies that a set of identifiers, one for each subpicture, is explicitly signalled for each subpicture either in the SPS or a picture parameter set (PPS), and the seventh syntax element being equal to zero specifies that no identifiers are explicitly signalled in the SPS or the PPS.” (Note that Claim 1 already discusses that the same manner of signalling as performed for PPS (fourth signal) where the information is not coded in the PPS, then can be further performed on SPS in the same manner (sixth signal), and if not it can be performed in the VPS and so on: “following the reference in the PPS to the relevant SPS [the fourth element signaling whether the information is in the PPS or in another header = not PPS], and following the reference in SPS [sixth syntax element] to the relevant data in the SPS or to the VPS [following the fourth reference to the end-variable in the PPS or to further references to the PPS and may continue in similar manner to VPS, and so on]” HEVC Overview, Page 1861, first column, third paragraph.)
Regarding Claim 16: “The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion comprises decoding the video from the bitstream.” (“the video decoder 30 receives an encoded video bitstream that represents video blocks of an encoded video slice [subpicture] and associated syntax elements from the video encoder 20.” Chien, Paragraphs 74-76 and statement of motivation in Claim 1. Similarly see examples in HEVC Overview, Section II, third paragraph.)
Regarding Claim 17: “The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion comprises encoding the video into the bitstream.” (“The video encoder 20 can include configuration data in the transmitted bitstream” Chien, Paragraph 65 and statement of motivation in Claim 1. Similarly see examples in HEVC Overview, Page 1860, second paragraph and statement of motivation below.)
Claim 18, “An apparatus for processing video data compnsmg a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to:…” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, and because prior art teaches: “The video encoder 20 and the video decoder 30 each can be implemented as any of a variety of suitable encoder circuitry, such as one or more microprocessors, digital signal processors (DSPs), … When the methods are implemented partially in software, a device may store instructions for the software in a suitable, non-transitory computer-readable medium and execute the instructions in hardware using one or more processors to perform the methods of this disclosure” Chien, Paragraph 42 and statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Claim 19, “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to:,” is rejected for reasons stated for Claims 1 and 18, because prior art teaches: “The video encoder 20 and the video decoder 30 each can be implemented as any of a variety of suitable encoder circuitry, such as one or more microprocessors, digital signal processors (DSPs), … When the methods are implemented partially in software, a device may store instructions for the software in a suitable, non-transitory computer-readable medium and execute the instructions in hardware using one or more processors to perform the methods of this disclosure” Chien, Paragraph 42.)
Claim 20, “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus, wherein the method comprises: …” is rejected for reasons stated for Claims 1 and 17, and because prior art also teaches: “The encoded video data may also (or alternatively) be stored onto the storage device 34” Chien, Paragraph 39 and statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 21: “The method of claim 1, wherein the bit stream further conforms to a second format rule, and wherein the second format rule specifies that
signalling a length of identifiers of subpictures in an SPS of the bitstream is based on a value of a sixth syntax element in the SPS indicative of subpicture information is present, and independent of a value of a seventh syntax element in the SPS indicative of whether the identifiers are explicitly signalled.” (For example see “sps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag [sixth syntax] … if( sps_subpics_id_signalling_present_flag ) { sps_subpic_id_len_minus1 …” which corresponds to signaling a length of identifiers of subpictures based on the sixth syntax without requiring at least one syntax corresponding to a seventh syntax. See AAPA, Specification, Paragraph 53 and Table 7.3.2.3 on page 11.
Also note that this type of signaling follows an HEVC convention: “following the reference in the PPS to the relevant SPS [the fourth element signaling whether the information is in the PPS or in another header = not PPS], and following the reference in SPS [sixth syntax element] to the relevant data in the SPS or to the VPS [following the fourth reference to the end-variable in the PPS or to further references to the PPS and may continue in similar manner to VPS, and so on]” HEVC Overview, Page 1861, first column, third paragraph. Thus, it was known and obvious that some “sixth reference” would point to a relevant reference in SPS, rather than some another “seventh reference” to say that it is explicitly signaled. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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 Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483