DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/16/2026 has been entered.
Restriction Requirement
Examiner notes the amendment to claim 1 violates the restriction requirement. The claimed subject matter referring to a twentieth general constraint syntax element regards a feature belonging to a non-elected invention represented by original claims 10–12 regarding APS and ALF. While the prior art rejections, infra, demonstrate the subject matter was taught in the cited prior art, such a finding, for expediency, does not circumvent or otherwise render ineffectual, the restriction requirement dated 05/23/2025. The problematic subject matter must be removed from the claims in order for the next set of claims to be found responsive. MPEP 819 and 821.03. Future submissions failing to honor the restriction requirement dated 05/23/2025 will be found non-responsive if presented in the independent claims and otherwise withdrawn from consideration through election by original presentation.
Response to Arguments
On pages 31–33 of the Remarks, Applicant contends, Bross does not disclose the relationship between the ph_alf_aps_id_chroma syntax element and the no_aps_constraint_flag syntax element. Examiner disagrees. First, the claimed twentieth syntax element belongs to a non-elected invention (i.e. original claims 10–12) such that including the subject matter in the independent claim violates the restriction requirement. See supra. Second, as Bross explains, the no_aps_constraint_flag means there are no APS IDs, i.e. no APS NAL unit types included in the bitstream. Therefore, Examiner is unpersuaded of patentability in view of the teachings of Bross. Because Bross actually does teach each of the claimed syntax elements and what they mean, Bross appears to anticipate, or at least render obvious, the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, the rejections are sustained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 13–15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bross et al., “Versatile Video Coding (Draft 8),” JVET-Q2001-vD, 17th Meeting: Brussels, BE, January 2020 (uploaded 02/27/2020).
Regarding claim 1, Bross discloses a method of processing video data, comprising: performing a conversion between a video comprising blocks and a bitstream of the video according to a rule, wherein the rule specifies that when a value of a first syntax element included in a picture parameter set (PPS) indicates that each subpicture of a video picture referring to the PPS includes one and only one rectangular slice (Bross, Section 7.4.3.4 (pg. 114): teaches the single_slice_per_subpic_flag in the PPS “specifies that each subpicture consists of one and only one rectangular slice”), a value of a second syntax element included in the PPS is inferred to be equal to a value of a third syntax element included in a sequence parameter set (SPS), wherein the value of the second syntax element plus 1 indicates a number of rectangular slices in each video picture referring to the PPS and the value of the third syntax element plus 1 indicates a number of subpictures in each video picture referring to the SPS (Bross, Section 7.4.3.4 (pg. 114): teaches for num_slices_in_pic_minus1, “When single_slice_per_subpic_flag is equal to 1, the value of num_slices_in_pic_minus1 is inferred to be equal to sps_num_subpics_minus1.”), wherein the rule further specifies that when a twentieth general constraint information syntax element is equal to 1, a syntax element specifying an identifier of an adaptive loop filtering (ALF) adaptation parameter set (APS) that a chroma component of slices in a current picture of the video refers to is not included in the bitstream of the video (Examiner interprets the constraint according to paragraph [0935] of Applicant’s published Specification, which explains the constraint syntax element is the no_aps_constraint_flag (see also original claim 10); Bross, pgs. 57 and 136: teaches the no_aps_constraint_flag prohibits APS nal unit types such that APS information is not included in the bitstream).
Regarding claim 13, Bross discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the performing the conversion comprises encoding the video into the bitstream (Bross, pg. 1: teaches the point of all this is encoding and decoding syntax elements in a bitstream).
Regarding claim 14, Bross discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the performing the conversion comprises decoding the video from the bitstream (Bross, pg. 1: teaches the point of all this is encoding and decoding syntax elements in a bitstream).
Claim 15 lists the same elements as claim 1, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 17 lists the same elements as claim 1, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 19 lists the same elements as claim 1, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim. This claim is also rejected as anticipated by a prior art DVD or similar because product-by-process claims, such as claim 19, must be patentably distinguishable based on their physical characteristics rather than the method by which they are made. Examiner recommends cancelling claim 19 because claim 17 is already in the form in which the CRM has instructions stored thereon, which cause a processor to perform the steps of… .
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 13–15, 17, and 19 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bross et al., “Versatile Video Coding (Draft 8),” JVET-Q2001-vD, 17th Meeting: Brussels, BE, January 2020 (uploaded 02/27/2020).
See rationale for the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102, supra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen (WO 2020/215102 A2) teaches constraints related to ALF APS information (see e.g. ¶ 00102).
The screen capture of the upload times for JVET-Q2001.
PNG
media_image1.png
266
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MICHAEL J. HESS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481
/MICHAEL J HESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights