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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 28, 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the notice of allowance on October 29, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see IDS, filed January 28, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Aoki (US 2019/0327493) a reference supplied by the IDS submitted on January 28, 2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasubramonian (US 2015/0382022) in view of Aoki et al (US 2019/0327493) and further in view of Roswarne (US 2015/0016542).
[claim 1]
In regard to Claim 1, Ramasubramonian 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 a decoding conformance constraint (Paragraph 0051 “As mentioned briefly above, the video encoder 20 encodes video data. The video data may comprise one or more pictures. Each of the pictures is a still image forming part of a video. In some instances, a picture may be referred to as a video “frame.” When the video encoder 20 encodes the video data, the video encoder 20 may generate a bitstream. The bitstream may include a sequence of bits that form a coded representation of the video data. The bitstream may include coded pictures and associated data. A coded picture is a coded representation of a picture.”);
wherein the decoding conformance constraint (Paragraph 0137 “Video coding standards may specify bitstream conformance constraints that a bitstream conforms to such standards should follow. In other words, to have a bitstream (e.g., conforming bitstream) that conforms to a standard, the bitstream needs to satisfy all the bitstream conformance constraints specified by the standard. In some video coding standards, a conforming bitstream is said to be decoded by a hypothetical decoder that is conceptually connected to the output of an encoder. Such a hypothetical decoder may consist of a decoder buffer, a decoder, and/or a display unit. This hypothetical decoder is sometimes referred to as a hypothetical reference decoder (HRD) in existing coding schemes (e.g., H.264, HEVC, etc), The bitstream conformance constraints of a given standard ensure that the encoder will generate a bitstream that can be properly decoded by arty decoder that conforms to the given standard.”)
specifies that a decoder conforming to a first profile (Figure 5 element 505, first bitstream partion. Paragraph 0146 “The method 500 begins at block 501. At block 505, the coder processes a bitstream conformance parameter associated with a bitstream partition of a plurality of bitstream partitions in a bitstream. The bitstream conformance parameter may be applicable to the bitstream partition but not to another portion of the bitstream not encompassed by the bitstream partition (e.g., other layers in the bitstream that do not belong to the bitstream partition). For example, such a parameter may be related to the timing information related to one or more pictures in the bitstream partition (e.g., when a picture in the bitstream partition is received by the decoding system, when a picture stored in the BPB is to be output to be decoded, etc.). In another example, the parameter may specify certain characteristics common to all the pictures in the bitstream partition or in a single partition unit of the bitstream partition. The parameter may also represent a bitstream conformance constraint applicable to a particular partition unit. The particular partition unit may include VCL NAL units of an AU that belong to the video layers contained in the bitstream partition and other non-VCL NAL units associated with the VCL NAL units.”);
is capable of decoding of at least a first picture of the bitstream when at least one condition applies (Paragraph 0138 “The bitstream conformance constraints can be used by any entity that desires to test whether a particular bitstream conforms to a standard. For example, such an entity may be on the encoder side (e.g., a content provider may wish to make sure that the bitstream being generated and sent out indeed conforms to the standard, since if the bitstream does not conform to the standard, the bitstream may not be properly decodable by a conforming decoder) or on the decoder side (e.g., since a decoder cannot be said to be a conforming decoder unless the decoder is able to decode all bitstreams that conform to the standard, it may be desirable for a decoder or an entity on the decoder side to test whether a given bitstream satisfies one or more bitstream conformance constraints specified by a given standard) or a network entity (e.g., a network box entity may receive bitstream and only forward it to other entities after ascertaining that the bitstream is a conforming bitstream by checking that the bitstream conformance constraints are valid).”);
the at least one condition comprising a first condition that the bitstream is indicated to conform to at least one second profile (Paragraph 0146 “The method 500 begins at block 501. At block 505, the coder processes a bitstream conformance parameter associated with a bitstream partition of a plurality of bitstream partitions in a bitstream. The bitstream conformance parameter may be applicable to the bitstream partition but not to another portion of the bitstream not encompassed by the bitstream partition (e.g., other layers in the bitstream that do not belong to the bitstream partition). For example, such a parameter may be related to the timing information related to one or more pictures in the bitstream partition (e.g., when a picture in the bitstream partition is received by the decoding system, when a picture stored in the BPB is to be output to be decoded, etc.). In another example, the parameter may specify certain characteristics common to all the pictures in the bitstream partition or in a single partition unit of the bitstream partition. The parameter may also represent a bitstream conformance constraint applicable to a particular partition unit. The particular partition unit may include VCL NAL units of an AU that belong to the video layers contained in the bitstream partition and other non-VCL NAL units associated with the VCL NAL units.”); however, fails to disclose
wherein the decoding conformance constraint specifies that a decoder conforming to a first profile is capable of decoding;
wherein the first profile comprises a Still Picture profile corresponding to a first bit depth higher than a predefined value, and the at least one second profile comprises at least one non-Still Picture profile corresponding to at least one second bit depth.
Aoki et al teaches the performing the conversion according to the decoding conformance constraint and conforming to a first profile condition is met (Paragraphs 0014-0017 describes the refresh information for the decoding device in addition paragraphs 0027-0029 and 0086-0093 describes the conforming to a profile and decoding once the conditions are met and seen in Figures 16 and 17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Ramasubarmonian and further teach the conforming of the decoding based on a profile, as taught by Aoki, in order to efficiently satisfy the state of the transmission delay (Paragraph 0011).
Roswarne teaches the first profile comprises a Still Picture profile corresponding to a first bit depth higher than a predetermined value (Paragraph 0193 “The encoded bitstream 312 may be said to conform to one or more profiles. The set of profiles that the encoded bitstream 312 conforms to is determined by ‘constraint flags’ in the ‘profile level tier’ syntax structure of the encoded bitstream 312. Constraint flags indicate the profile(s) to which the encoded bitstream conforms. For example, ‘general_max—12 bit_constraint_flag’ signals that the set of profiles to which the encoded bitstream 312 conforms excludes all profiles which support bit-depths greater than 12-bits. If ‘general_max—12 bit_constraint_flag’ is set to zero, then the set of profiles to which the encoded bitstream 312 conforms to excludes all profiles other than the following profiles: ‘Monochrome 16’, ‘Main 4:4:4 16 Intra’ and the ‘Main 4:4:4 16 Still Picture’. In such a case, the encoded bitstream 312 cannot be considered to conform to profiles such as ‘Main 4:4:4 12 Intra’ or ‘Main 10 Intra’. Other constraint flags may further restrict the set of profiles to which the encoded bitstream 312 conforms.”) and the at least one second profile comprises at least one non-Still Picture profile corresponding to at least one second bit depth (Paragraph 0166 “Such arrangements of the video encoder 114 and the video decoder 134 do not require a substantial increase in the MAX_TR_DYNAMIC_RANGE constant 388 beyond the value of ‘15’ inherent in the high efficiency video coding (HEVC) standard for the Main and Main10 profiles.”).
It would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take the processing method of Ramasubramonian in view of Aoki and include a method of using multiple profiles such as still and video each with various defined bit depths as taught by Roswarne to provide precision processing as required for various profiles (Paragraph 0193-1095).
[claim 2]
In regard to Claim 2, Roswarne teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the predefined value is 10 (Paragraph 0193 and as stated in Claim 1 recites “decoding the bit-stream of the encoded video data to determine decoded video data, using a profile supported by the video decoder, if the bit stream has extended precision processing enabled and a bit depth greater than nine (9) bits, the decoded video data having differences to the video data encoded in the bit-stream due to the unsupported profile being different to the supported profile”).
[claim 3]
In regard to Claim 3, Roswarne teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the at least one second bit depth is lower than or equal to the first bit depth (Roswarne teaches wherein at least one second bit depth is lower than or equal to the first bit depth (8-12 for second bit depths and first bit depth being greater than 9, Paragraph 0193 “Constraint flags indicate the profile(s) to which the encoded bitstream conforms. For example, ‘general_max—12 bit_constraint_flag’ signals that the set of profiles to which the encoded bitstream 312 conforms excludes all profiles which support bit-depths greater than 12-bits.” and Claim 1).
[claim 4]
In regard to Claim 4, Roswarne teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the first profile comprises Main 12 Still Picture profile, and wherein the at least one second profile comprises at least one of the following: Main 10 profile, Main 12 profile, or Main 12 Intra profile (Paragraph 0193 “If ‘general_max—12 bit_constraint_flag’ is set to zero, then the set of profiles to which the encoded bitstream 312 conforms to excludes all profiles other than the following profiles: ‘Monochrome 16’, ‘Main 4:4:4 16 Intra’ and the ‘Main 4:4:4 16 Still Picture’. In such a case, the encoded bitstream 312 cannot be considered to conform to profiles such as ‘Main 4:4:4 12 Intra’ or ‘Main 10 Intra’. Other constraint flags may further restrict the set of profiles to which the encoded bitstream 312 conforms.”)
[claim 5]
In regard to Claim 5, Roswarne teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the first profile comprises Main 12 4:4:4 Still Picture profile, and wherein the at least one second profile comprises at least one of the following: Main 10 profile, Main 10 4:4:4 profile, Main 12 profile, Main 12 Intra profile, Main 12 4:4:4 profile, or Main 12 4:4:4 Intra profile (Paragraph 0193 “If ‘general_max—12 bit_constraint_flag’ is set to zero, then the set of profiles to which the encoded bitstream 312 conforms to excludes all profiles other than the following profiles: ‘Monochrome 16’, ‘Main 4:4:4 16 Intra’ and the ‘Main 4:4:4 16 Still Picture’. In such a case, the encoded bitstream 312 cannot be considered to conform to profiles such as ‘Main 4:4:4 12 Intra’ or ‘Main 10 Intra’. Other constraint flags may further restrict the set of profiles to which the encoded bitstream 312 conforms.”).
[claim 6]
In regard to Claim 6, Roswarne teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the first profile comprises Main 16 4:4:4 Still Picture profile, and wherein the at least one second profile comprises at least one of the following: Main 10 profile, Main 10 4:4:4 profile, Main 12 profile, Main 12 Intra profile, Main 12 4:4:4 profile, Main 12 4:4:4 Intra profile, Main 16 4:4:4 profile, or Main 16 4:4:4 Intra profile (Paragraph 0193 “If ‘general_max—12 bit_constraint_flag’ is set to zero, then the set of profiles to which the encoded bitstream 312 conforms to excludes all profiles other than the following profiles: ‘Monochrome 16’, ‘Main 4:4:4 16 Intra’ and the ‘Main 4:4:4 16 Still Picture’. In such a case, the encoded bitstream 312 cannot be considered to conform to profiles such as ‘Main 4:4:4 12 Intra’ or ‘Main 10 Intra’. Other constraint flags may further restrict the set of profiles to which the encoded bitstream 312 conforms.”).
[claim 7]
In regard to Claim 7, Ramasubramonian discloses a method of claim 1, wherein the decoding conformance constraint further specifies that the decoder conforming to the first profile at a first level of a first tier is capable of decoding of at least the first picture of the bitstream when the at least one condition applies (Paragraph 0146 The method 500 begins at block 501. At block 505, the coder processes a bitstream conformance parameter associated with a bitstream partition of a plurality of bitstream partitions in a bitstream. The bitstream conformance parameter may be applicable to the bitstream partition but not to another portion of the bitstream not encompassed by the bitstream partition (e.g., other layers in the bitstream that do not belong to the bitstream partition). For example, such a parameter may be related to the timing information related to one or more pictures in the bitstream partition (e.g., when a picture in the bitstream partition is received by the decoding system, when a picture stored in the BPB is to be output to be decoded, etc.). In another example, the parameter may specify certain characteristics common to all the pictures in the bitstream partition or in a single partition unit of the bitstream partition. The parameter may also represent a bitstream conformance constraint applicable to a particular partition unit. The particular partition unit may include VCL NAL units of an AU that belong to the video layers contained in the bitstream partition and other non-VCL NAL units associated with the VCL NAL units.”).
[claim 8]
In regard to Claim 8, Roswarne teaches a method of claim 7, wherein the at least one condition further comprises at least one of the following: a second condition that the bitstream is indicated to conform to a tier that is lower than or equal to the first tier, or a third condition that the bitstream is indicated to conform to a level that is not level 15.5 and is lower than or equal to the first level (Roswarne teaches wherein at least one second bit depth is lower than or equal to the first bit depth (8-12 for second bit depths and first bit depth being greater than 9, Paragraph 0193 “Constraint flags indicate the profile(s) to which the encoded bitstream conforms. For example, ‘general_max—12 bit_constraint_flag’ signals that the set of profiles to which the encoded bitstream 312 conforms excludes all profiles which support bit-depths greater than 12-bits.” and Claim 1).
[claim 10]
In regard to Claim 10, Ramasubramonian discloses a 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 (Paragraph 0145 “With reference to FIG. 5, an example routine for processing a parameter associated with a bitstream partition will be described. FIG. 5 is a flowchart illustrating a method 500 for coding video information, according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. The method 500 may be performed by an encoder (e.g., the video encoder as shown in FIG. 2A or FIG. 2B), a decoder (e.g., the video decoder as shown in FIG. 3A or FIG. 3B), or any other component. For convenience, the method 500 is described as performed by a coder, which may be the encoder, the decoder, or another component”).
[Claim 11]
In regard to Claim 11, is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method claim 1. Additionally, it is noted, Ramasubramonian 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, cause the processor to perform acts (Figure 1b and paragraphs 0006 and 0041 and 0045).
[claim 12]
In regard to Claim 12, Roswarne teaches an apparatus of claim 11, wherein the predefined value is 10, and/or wherein the at least one second bit depth is lower than or equal to the first bit depth. (Paragraph 0193 and as stated in Claim 1 recites “decoding the bit-stream of the encoded video data to determine decoded video data, using a profile supported by the video decoder, if the bit stream has extended precision processing enabled and a bit depth greater than nine (9) bits, the decoded video data having differences to the video data encoded in the bit-stream due to the unsupported profile being different to the supported profile”).
[claim 13]
In regard to Claim 13, is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method claims 5 and 6.
[claim 14]
In regard to Claim 14, is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method claim 7.
[claim 15]
In regard to Claim 15, is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method claim 8.
[claim 17]
In regard to Claim 17, Ramasubramonian discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform a method in accordance with any of claim 1 (Figure 1b and paragraphs 0006).
[claim 18]
In regard to Claim 18, is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method and apparatus claims 1 and 11.
[claim 19]
In regard to Claim 19, is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method and apparatus claims 5, 6, and 13.
[claim 20]
In regard to Claim 20, is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method and apparatus claims 5, 6, and 13.
Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasubramonian (US 2015/0382022) in view of Aoki (US 2019/0327493) and further in view of Roswarne (US 2015/0016542) in further view of Hannuksela et al (US 2015/0103926).
[claim 9]
In regard to Claim 9, Ramasubramonian in view of Aoki in view of Roswarne discloses a method of claim 1; however fails to disclose wherein the at least one condition further comprises at least one of the following: a fourth condition that the first picture of the bitstream is an Intra Random Access Point (IRAP) picture or a Gradual Decoding Refresh (GDR) picture with a recovery point of decoded pictures in an output order equal to 0, a fifth condition that the first picture is in an output layer, or a sixth condition that the first picture has a picture output flag set to a predefined value.
Hannuksela teaches a method of encoding and decoding that is based on various ways of encoding and decoding pictures into the bitstream and providing the first picture is an output layer (Paragraph 0048 “According to a seventh aspect there is provided a method comprising: [0049] encoding pictures into a bitstream, the bitstream comprising at least two scalability layers; [0050] encoding, into the bitstream, at least one first indication that provides one or more properties for an output layer set and associates an index for the output layer set; [0051] encoding, into the bitstream, a first picture of a first layer; [0052] encoding, into a picture-level structure within the bitstream, at least one second indication that associates the first picture to the output layer set; [0053] encoding, into the bitstream, a second picture of a second layer; [0054] encoding, into a picture-level structure within the bitstream, at least one third indication that associates the second picture to the output layer set; [0055] wherein the first, the second and the third indications jointly have an impact that the pictures being associated with the output layer set are output by a decoding process of the bitstream wherein the output layer set has been selected.”). Furthermore, it is noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim using “or language” allows for the selection of one condition and therefore the reference provides the one condition.
It would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take the processing method of Ramasubramonian in view of Roswarne and include a condition that the first picture is in an output layer as taught by Hannuksela to provide efficient processing of the bitstream data (Paragraph 0481-0482).
[claim 16]
In regard to Claim 16, is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method claims 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIE JO ATALA whose telephone number is (571)272-7384. The examiner can normally be reached 830am-500pm M-TH.
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, Colleen Fauz can be reached at 571-272-1667. 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.
/JAMIE J ATALA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights