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 .
Status of Claims
2. This is a final action on the merits in response to the reply received 4/27/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejections.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240357129 A1-Tsukuba, in view of US 20190327493 A1-Aoki et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Aoki”), in further view of US 20210289219 A1-Seregin et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Seregin”).
Regarding claim 1, Tsukuba discloses a method for video processing, comprising:
performing a conversion between a target video block of a video and a bitstream of the video according to an intra profile (abstract, encoding all pictures as I-picture. Encoding is interpreted as the conversion that is being performed, the intra profile a constraint that at least the first picture of the video in the bitstream comprises a gradual decoding refresh (GDR) picture ([192-0199], This intra-only constraint flag (gci_intra_only_constraint_flag) is flag information indicating whether or not a slice type of all slices of a moving image included in a bitstream as a decoding target is the I-slice on the decoding side. For example, in a case where the intra-only constraint flag is true (for example, gci_intra_only_constraint_flag==1), it indicates that the slice type of all slices of the moving image included in the bitstream as a decoding target is the I-slice. I-slice or I frames are not inter prediction use; gradual decoding refresh picture in [0086])).
Tsukuba faisl to specifically disclose a gradual decoding refresh (GDR) picture with a syntax element for a recovery point being equal to zero
However, in the same field of endeavor, Aoki disclose a gradual decoding refresh (GDR) picture with a syntax element for a recovery point being equal to zero ([0014] gradual refresh; [0016], [0017], transfers refresh information to a decoding device, a data group called a recovery point supplemental enhancement information message (recovery point SEI message) is defined. The recovery point SEI message includes information on the synchronization starting picture and the synchronization completed picture and corresponds with both of the instantaneous refresh and the gradual refresh. In addition see fig 4-5, 17)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Tsukuba to disclose a gradual decoding refresh (GDR) picture with a syntax element for a recovery point being equal to zero as taught by Aoki, to satisfy demands for a decrease in transmission delay ([0011], Aoki).
Tsukuba and Aoki fail to disclose the GDR picture being in an output layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Seregin discloses the GDR picture being in an output layer ([0205], this disclosure proposes that a layer switch from one layer to another layer, for example for output, can happen only at an access unit (AU) which has only TRAP or GDR picture units (PU) or pictures)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Tsukuba and Aoki to disclose the GDR picture being in an output layer as taught by Seregin, to create an experience where delays in video output may be reduced and the user experience may be improved (Seregin, [0005])
Regarding claim 2, Tsukuba discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the intra profile comprises Main 12 Intra profile, Main 12 4:4:4 Intra profile, or Main 16 4:4:4 Intra profile ([0193]); and wherein slices of the video in the bitstream for the intra profile are I slices (([192-0199], This intra-only constraint flag (gci_intra_only_constraint_flag) is flag information indicating whether or not a slice type of all slices of a moving image included in a bitstream as a decoding target is the I-slice on the decoding side. For example, in a case where the intra-only constraint flag is true (for example, gci_intra_only_constraint_flag==1), it indicates that the slice type of all slices of the moving image included in the bitstream as a decoding target is the I-slice).
Regarding claim 3, Tsukuba discloses the method of claim 1, wherein in the bitstream for the intra profile, a coding type of slices of the video in the bitstream indicates a type of I slices (([192-0199], This intra-only constraint flag (gci_intra_only_constraint_flag) is flag information indicating whether or not a slice type of all slices of a moving image included in a bitstream as a decoding target is the I-slice on the decoding side. For example, in a case where the intra-only constraint flag is true (for example, gci_intra_only_constraint_flag==1), it indicates that the slice type of all slices of the moving image included in the bitstream as a decoding target is the I-slice).
Regarding claim 4, Tsukuba discloses the method of claim 3, wherein in the bitstream for the intra profile, a value for a slice header semantic corresponding to the coding type is equal to two ([0477], sh_slice_type to 2).
Regarding claim 5, Tsukuba discloses the method of claim 1, wherein in the bitstream for the intra profile, a constraint flag is set to specify that slices of the video in the bitstream are I slices(([192-0199], This intra-only constraint flag (gci_intra_only_constraint_flag) is flag information indicating whether or not a slice type of all slices of a moving image included in a bitstream as a decoding target is the I-slice on the decoding side. For example, in a case where the intra-only constraint flag is true (for example, gci_intra_only_constraint_flag==1), it indicates that the slice type of all slices of the moving image included in the bitstream as a decoding target is the I-slice)..
Regarding claim 6, Tsubuka discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the constraint flag is set to specify that a coding type of the slices of the video in the bitstream is a type of I slices ((([192-0199], This intra-only constraint flag (gci_intra_only_constraint_flag) is flag information indicating whether or not a slice type of all slices of a moving image included in a bitstream as a decoding target is the I-slice on the decoding side. For example, in a case where the intra-only constraint flag is true (for example, gci_intra_only_constraint_flag==1), it indicates that the slice type of all slices of the moving image included in the bitstream as a decoding target is the I-slice).
Regarding claim 7, Tsubuka discloses the method of claim 5, wherein in the bitstream for the intra profile, a value for a general constraints information semantic corresponding to the constraint flag is equal to one ([0192-0199], gci_intra_only_constraint_flag==1),.
Regarding claim 8, Tsubuka discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the target video block into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the target video block from the bitstream (abstract, wherein encoding).
Regarding claim 9, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 9, wherein processor and memory ([0390])
Regarding claim 10, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 2 and are applicable for claim 10
Regarding claim 11, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 3 and are applicable for claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 4 and are applicable for claim 12
Regarding claim 13, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 5 and are applicable for claim 13
Regarding claim 14, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 6 and are applicable for claim 14
Regarding claim 15, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 7 and are applicable for claim 15
Regarding claim 16, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 8 and are applicable for claim 16
Regarding claim 17, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 2 and are applicable for claim 18
Regarding claim 19, the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion comprises: generating the bitstream from the video, and the method further comprises: storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable ([0010, Seregin).
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 LERON BECK whose telephone number is (571)270-1175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
LERON . BECK
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/LERON BECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights