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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/31/2025 has been entered.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102A2 as being anticipated by US 20240357129 A1-Tsukuba.
Claim 19 have been interpreted above as nonfunctional descriptive material under MPEP 2111.05(III) and the case law cited therein because it recites “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing the bitstream”. As such, claim 19 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. In other words, the proper interpretation of claim 19 is merely a machine-readable media in which the media is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored wherein the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight.
Although any machine-readable media is considered analogous to claim 19 given their proper interpretation as a mere data carrier, Tsukuba is even more analogous art because it applies a program causing a computer to execute functions. As shown in [409-413], Tsukuba discloses different type of readable media.
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) 1-20 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”).
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)
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, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 2 and are applicable for claim 20.
Conclusion
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