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 .
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.
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/994,864 in view of Deshpande (U.S. 2016/0366428), hereinafter Deshpande and Deng et al. (U.S. 12,413,785), hereinafter Deng. The same rejection can be made for independent claims 11, 15 and 17 when compared to claims 11, 15 and 17 of the copending application.
The instant application’s additional imitations are mapped with motivation below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the copending Application’s apparatus and method with the missing limitations as taught by Deshpande to represent digital media efficiently with improved performance (Deshpande [0005]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving video coding efficiency and versatility.
Dependent claims 2-3, 6-10, 12-14, 16 and 18-20 are also rejected as a result of being dependent on claims 1, 11, 15 and 17.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9-11, 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande (U.S. 2016/0366428) in view of Deng et al. (U.S. 12,413,785), hereinafter Deng. Deng was cited in the Applicant’s IDS dated 10/31/25.
Regarding claim 1 and 11, Deshpande discloses an apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor ([0044] and [0114]), cause the processor to:
perform a conversion between a video and a bitstream of the video according to a rule ([0206]),
wherein the rule specifies a mapping between a profile of the bitstream from multiple profiles available for the conversion ([0344]) and a corresponding profile indication field that indicates the profile ([0348]),
wherein the rule specifies that the corresponding profile indication filed has different values for different profiles, respectively ([0351]).
Deshpande does not explicitly disclose wherein the rule specifies that the corresponding profile indication field is included in a profile, tier, level information syntax structure when a value of a profile tier present flag is equal to one, which indicates that profile, tier, and general constraint information is allowed to be present, wherein the rule specifies that a first syntax element is included in the profile, tier, level information syntax structure when the value of the profile tier present flag is equal to one, wherein a value of the first syntax element indicates whether one or more general constraint information syntax elements are included in a general constraint information syntax structure specifying whether one or more general constraints are applied to the conversion, and wherein the one or more general constraint information syntax elements include a general constraint information syntax element indicative of a number of reserved bits in the general constraint information syntax structure.
However, Deng teaches a method comprising:
wherein the rule specifies that the corresponding profile indication field is included in a profile, tier, level information syntax structure when a value of a profile tier present flag is equal to one, which indicates that profile, tier, and general constraint information is allowed to be present (Deng col. 4, lines 54-65),
wherein the rule specifies that a first syntax element is included in the profile, tier, level information syntax structure when the value of the profile tier present flag is equal to one (Deng col. 4, lines 54-65), wherein a value of the first syntax element indicates whether one or more general constraint information syntax elements are included in a general constraint information syntax structure specifying whether one or more general constraints are applied to the conversion (Deng col. 119, lines 23-33), and
wherein the one or more general constraint information syntax elements include a general constraint information syntax element indicative of a number of reserved bits in the general constraint information syntax structure (Deng col. 120, lines 30-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deshpande’s apparatus and method with the missing limitations as taught by Deng to improve coding efficiency as a result of signaling presence flags and reserved bits for general constraint information (Deng col. 99, line 24-31 and col. 119, lines 23-26).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving video coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 9, Deshpande in view of Deng teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the video into the bitstream (Deshpande Abstract and fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 10, Deshpande in view of Deng teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the video from the bitstream (Deshpande Abstract and fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 15, Deshpande in view of Deng teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to: perform a conversion between a video and a bitstream of the video according to a rule, wherein the rule specifies a mapping between a profile of the bitstream from multiple profiles available for the conversion and a corresponding profile indication field that indicates the profile, wherein the rule specifies that the corresponding profile indication filed has different values for different profiles, respectively, wherein the rule specifies that the corresponding profile indication field is included in a profile, tier, level information syntax structure when a value of a profile tier present flag is equal to one, which indicates that profile, tier, and general constraint information is allowed to be present, wherein the rule specifies that a first syntax element is included in the profile, tier, level information syntax structure when the value of the profile tier present flag is equal to one, wherein a value of the first syntax element indicates whether one or more general constraint information syntax elements are included in a general constraint information syntax structure specifying whether one or more general constraints are applied to the conversion, and wherein the one or more general constraint information syntax elements include a general constraint information syntax element indicative of a number of reserved bits in the general constraint information syntax structure (see claim 11 citations and analysis).
Regarding claim 17, Deshpande in view of Deng teaches a method for storing a bitstream of a video, comprising: generating the bitstream of the video according to a rule, and storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (Deshpande [0063] and fig. 1A), wherein the rule specifies a mapping between a profile of the bitstream from multiple profiles available for the generation and a corresponding profile indication field that indicates the profile, wherein the rule specifies that the corresponding profile indication filed has different values for different profiles, respectively, wherein the rule specifies that the corresponding profile indication field is included in a profile, tier, level information syntax structure when a value of a profile tier present flag is equal to one, which indicates that profile, tier, and general constraint information is allowed to be present, wherein the rule specifies that a first syntax element is included in the profile, tier, level information syntax structure when the value of the profile tier present flag is equal to one, wherein a value of the first syntax element indicates whether one or more general constraint information syntax elements are included in a general constraint information syntax structure specifying whether one or more general constraints are applied to the conversion, and wherein the one or more general constraint information syntax elements include a general constraint information syntax element indicative of a number of reserved bits in the general constraint information syntax structure (see claim 11 citations and analysis).
Claim(s) 2, 7-8, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande (U.S. 2016/0366428) in view of Deng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bross et al. (“Versatile Video Coding (Draft 9)”, JVET-R2001-vA, 15-24 April 2020), hereinafter Bross. The Examiner has attached a copy of Bross as NPL.
Regarding claim 2, Deshpande in view of Deng teaches the method of claim 1. Deshpande does not explicitly disclose wherein the corresponding profile indication field has a specific value in response to the profile being a main 10 still picture.
However, Bross teaches wherein the corresponding profile indication field has a specific value when the profile is a main 10 still picture (Bross pgs. 434-435, section A.3.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Deshpande in view of Deng with the missing limitations as taught by Bross to provide a compression capability that is substantially beyond that of the prior generations of such standards and to be highly versatile for effective use in a broadened range of application (Bross cover page, Abstract).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving video coding efficiency and versatility.
Regarding claim 7, Deshpande in view of Deng and Bross teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the rule specifies that a third syntax field is included in a sequence parameter set to specify whether reference picture list syntax elements are present or not (Bross pgs. 42 and 108) in slice headers of an instantaneous decoding refresh picture (Bross p. 61).
The same motivation and analysis for claim 2 applies to claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Deshpande in view of Deng and Bross teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the third syntax field equal to 1 specifies that reference picture list syntax elements are present in slice headers of the instantaneous decoding refresh picture (Bross pgs. 61 and 108).
The same motivation and analysis for claim 2 applies to claim 8.
Regarding claim 14, Deshpande in view of Deng and Bross teaches the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the rule specifies that a third syntax field is included in a sequence parameter set to specify whether reference picture list syntax elements are present or not in slice headers of an instantaneous decoding refresh picture, and wherein the third syntax field equal to 1 specifies that reference picture list syntax elements are present in slice headers of the instantaneous decoding refresh picture (see citations and analysis for claims 7-8).
Regarding claim 20, Deshpande in view of Deng and Bross teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the rule specifies that a third syntax field is included in a sequence parameter set to specify whether reference picture list syntax elements are present or not in slice headers of an instantaneous decoding refresh picture, and wherein the third syntax field equal to 1 specifies that reference picture list syntax elements are present in slice headers of the instantaneous decoding refresh picture (see citations and analysis for claims 7-8).
Claim(s) 3, 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande in view of Deng and Bross as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bossen (U.S. 2022/0103866).
Regarding claim 3, Deshpande in view of Deng and Bross teaches the method of claim 2. Deshpande does not explicitly disclose wherein the specific value assigned to a main 10 still picture profile is equal to 65.
However, Bossen teaches, wherein the specific value assigned to a main 10 still picture profile is equal to 65 (Bossen [0552], which is supported on p. 64 of the provisional application 63/084,446).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus and method taught by Deshpande in view of Deng and Bross with the missing limitations as taught by Bossen to increase video compression efficiency (Bossen [0004]).
Regarding claim 12, Deshpande in view Rosewarne, Bross and Bossen teaches the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the corresponding profile indication field has a specific value when the profile is a main 10 still picture, and wherein the specific value assigned to a main 10 still picture profile is equal to 65 (see citations and analysis for claims 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 18, Deshpande in view of Rosewarne, Bross and Bossen teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the corresponding profile indication field has a specific value when the profile is a main 10 still picture, and wherein the specific value assigned to a main 10 still picture profile is equal to 65 (see citations and analysis for claims 2 and 3).
Claim(s) 6, 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande in view of Deng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rosewarne (U.S. 2023/0171432) and Naser et al. (U.S. 2023/0188757), hereinafter Naser.
Regarding claim 6, Deshpande in view of Deng teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion is based on selective applicability of multiple coding functionalities (Deng [0041] and [0045]),
wherein the rule specifies that the selective applicability of each coding functionality of the multiple coding functionalities in the conversion is indicated by a corresponding syntax field (Deng [0041] and [0045]).
The same motivation or claim 1 applies to claim 6.
Deshpande does not explicitly disclose wherein the rule specifies that the selective applicability of each coding functionality of the multiple coding functionalities in the conversion is indicated by a corresponding general constraint information syntax element, wherein a first coding functionality of the multiple coding functionalities related to a maximum coding tree unit size constraint is indicated by a first corresponding syntax field, and the maximum coding tree unit size constraint is not imposed when the first corresponding syntax field is equal to a certain value, and wherein the certain value is equal to 0.
However, Rosewarne teaches wherein the rule specifies that the selective applicability of each coding functionality of the multiple coding functionalities in the conversion is indicated by a corresponding general constraint information syntax element (Rosewarne [0020] and [0162]),
wherein a first coding functionality of the multiple coding functionalities related to a maximum coding tree unit size constraint is indicated by a first corresponding syntax field, and the maximum coding tree unit size constraint is not imposed when the first corresponding syntax field is equal to a certain value (Rosewarne [0020] and [0162]), and wherein the certain value is equal to 0 (Rosewarne [0162] and [0132]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus and method taught by Deshpande in view of Deng with the missing limitations as taught by Rosewarne to provide granularity of control over block structure behavior (Rosewarne [0162]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving video coding efficiency and versatility.
Deshpande does not explicitly disclose wherein a second coding functionality of the multiple coding functionalities related to a multi-type tree constraint is indicated by a second corresponding syntax field.
However, Naser teaches wherein a second coding functionality of the multiple coding functionalities related to a multi-type tree constraint is indicated by a second corresponding syntax field (Naser claim 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus and method taught by Deshpande in view of Deng and Rosewarne with the missing limitations as taught by Naser to allow more finely control the encoding process (Naser [0004-[0005] and claim 6).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to allow more finely control the encoding process.
Regarding claim 13, Deshpande in view of Deng, Rosewarne and Naser teaches the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the conversion is based on selective applicability of multiple coding functionalities, wherein the rule specifies that the selective applicability of each coding functionality of the multiple coding functionalities in the conversion is indicated by a corresponding general constraint information syntax element, wherein a first coding functionality of the multiple coding functionalities related to a maximum coding tree unit size constraint is indicated by a first corresponding syntax field, and the maximum coding tree unit size constraint is not imposed when the first corresponding syntax field is equal to a certain value, and wherein the certain value is equal to 0, and wherein a second coding functionality of the multiple coding functionalities related to a multi-type tree constraint is indicated by a second corresponding syntax field (see citations and analysis for claim 6).
The same motivation for claim 6 applies to claim 13.
Regarding claim 19, Deshpande in view of Deng, Rosewarne and Naser teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the conversion is based on selective applicability of multiple coding functionalities, wherein the rule specifies that the selective applicability of each coding functionality of the multiple coding functionalities in the conversion is indicated by a corresponding general constraint information syntax element, wherein a first coding functionality of the multiple coding functionalities related to a maximum coding tree unit size constraint is indicated by a first corresponding syntax field, and the maximum coding tree unit size constraint is not imposed when the first corresponding syntax field is equal to a certain value, and wherein the certain value is equal to 0, and wherein a second coding functionality of the multiple coding functionalities related to a multi-type tree constraint is indicated by a second corresponding syntax field (see citations and analysis for claim 6).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande in view of Deng as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Bross, Bossen and Naser.
Regarding claim 16, Deshpande in view of Deng, Bross, Bossen and Naser teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the corresponding profile indication field has a specific value in response to the profile being a main 10 still picture, wherein the specific value assigned to a main 10 still picture profile is equal to 65, wherein the conversion is based on selective applicability of multiple coding functionalities, wherein the rule specifies that the selective applicability of each coding functionality of the multiple coding functionalities in the conversion is indicated by a corresponding general constraint information syntax element, wherein a first coding functionality of the multiple coding functionalities related to a maximum coding tree unit size constraint is indicated by a first corresponding syntax field, and the maximum coding tree unit size constraint is not imposed when the first corresponding syntax field is equal to a certain value, and wherein the certain value is equal to 0, wherein a second coding functionality of the multiple coding functionalities related to a multi-type tree constraint is indicated by a second corresponding syntax field, wherein the rule specifies that a third syntax field is included in a sequence parameter set to specify whether reference picture list syntax elements are present or not in slice headers of an instantaneous decoding refresh picture, and wherein the third syntax field equal to 1 specifies that reference picture list syntax elements are present in slice headers of the instantaneous decoding refresh picture (see citations and analysis for claims 2-3 and 6-8 as claim 16 includes analogous limitations).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/26 in regards to the previously presented portions of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 11 of the Applicant's Response, the Applicant requests that the Office hold the double patenting rejection in abeyance until the claims are in condition for allowance. MPEP section, 804(I)(B)(1) states that only objections and requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. Moreover, MPEP §707 citing 37 CFR 1.104(a)(1) and 37 CFR 1.104(b) states that the Examiner’s action will be complete as to all matters of compliance with applicable statutes and rules. Therefore, since the double patenting rejection is based on the subject matter of the claims and MPEP §707 cited above requires an Examiner’s action to be complete, the double patenting rejection is being upheld. While the Examiner understands that the claims may change as prosecution advances, the rejection is still upheld based on the aforementioned rationale.
On pgs. 11-12 of the Applicant's Response, the Applicant argues Deng is disqualified as prior art as a result of the common ownership statement invoking the 102(b)(2)(C) exception by the Applicant on p. 12 of the Applicant’s Response.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP § 717.02(a)(I)(B) states “A statement of present common ownership is not sufficient.” The section further gives an example of a proper common ownership statement “Application X and Patent A were, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention in Application X, owned by Company Z." Further, the section states “The statement concerning common ownership should be clear and conspicuous (e.g., on a separate paper) to ensure the examiner notices the statement.” In comparison, the Applicant’s statement on p. 12 states “Deng and the present application are both owned by and/or subject to assignment to Beijing Bytedance Network Technologies Co., Ltd. and Bytedance Inc.” This statement is insufficient because it is a statement of present ownership and also it can be argued that the statement given by Applicant is not clear and conspicuous (i.e. a separate paper, including its own section). As a result, since the common ownership exception has not been invoked correctly, Deng is not disqualified as prior art based on the Applicant’s common ownership statement and the rejections above still apply.
The Examiner attempted to contact attorney Brandt Howell by phone on 5/12/26, however, Mr. Howell was unavailable, so the Examiner left a voicemail in an attempt to correct this issue by requesting the Applicant file a corrected common ownership statement for compact prosecution, however, a response was not received.
Further, an example of a proper statement of common ownership can be seen in application no. 17/494,934, see Miscellaneous Incoming Letter dated 1/18/23.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bross discloses a profile_tier_level with a profileTierPresentFlag with general_profile_idc and general_constraint_info() (Bross p. 56, section 7.3.3.1) and gci_num_reserved_bytes syntax (Bross p. 58, above section 7.3.4 and p. 142).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW KWAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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.
/MATTHEW K KWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights