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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the secondary reference, Rosewarne, does not disclose using the LSB of a syntax as a profile indicator but as another function. Examiner respectfully submits Rosewarne is used to show two LSB of a syntax are often used to distinguish functions. As shown in the primary reference, Ikai show implicitly in Col. 90: ll. 49-63: Conformance of a bitstream to Monochrome 12, Monochrome 16, Main 12, Main 10 4:2:2, Main 12 4:2:2, Main 12 4:4:4, Main 12 Intra, Main 12 4:2:2 Intra, Main 4:4:4 Intra, Main 12 4:4:4 Intra, Main 16 4:4:4 or Main 16 4:4:4 Intra profiles in the format range extensions profiles is indicated by general_profile_idc being equal to 4 with the additional indications specified in Table 17.
Conformance of a bitstream to Main 12 4:4:4, Main 12 4:4:4 Intra, Main 16 4:4:4 or Main 16 4:4:4 Intra profiles in the format range extensions profiles is indicated by general_profile_idc being equal to 36.
Conformance of a bitstream to the Main 12 Still Picture profile in the format range extensions profiles is indicated by general_profile_idc being equal to 68.
Conformance of a bitstream to the Main 12 4:4:4 Still Picture or Main 16 4:4:4 Still Picture profiles in the format range extensions profiles is indicated by general_profile_idc being equal to 100.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-17 and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikai et al. (US 12200238 B2) in view of Rosewarne et al. (US 2015/0016542 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 13, and 19-20, Ikai discloses an apparatus performing a method via CRM, the method for video processing, comprising: performing a conversion between a target video block of a video and a bitstream of the video based on a general profile indicator of a profile defining capabilities for decoding the bitstream [Ikai: FIG. 15A], the general profile indicator is a syntax element indicated in the bitstream [Ikai: FIG. 15A; and Col. 89, ll. 15-23: Further, with respect to Table 15D, it should be noted that the values of general_profile_idc are based on the following: 2 for Main 12, 4 for Main 16, 5 for Main 12 Intra, Main 12 4:4:4 Intra, (and may be also Main 16 Intra), Main 16 4:4:4 Intra, 64 for Still Picture 32 for 4:4:4] wherein least significant bits (LSBs) of the general profile indicator are combined to indicate a maximum allowed bit depth for the profile [Ikai: Col. 90: ll. 49-63: Conformance of a bitstream to Monochrome 12, Monochrome 16, Main 12, Main 10 4:2:2, Main 12 4:2:2, Main 12 4:4:4, Main 12 Intra, Main 12 4:2:2 Intra, Main 4:4:4 Intra, Main 12 4:4:4 Intra, Main 16 4:4:4 or Main 16 4:4:4 Intra profiles in the format range extensions profiles is indicated by general_profile_idc being equal to 4 with the additional indications specified in Table 17.
Conformance of a bitstream to Main 12 4:4:4, Main 12 4:4:4 Intra, Main 16 4:4:4 or Main 16 4:4:4 Intra profiles in the format range extensions profiles is indicated by general_profile_idc being equal to 36.
Conformance of a bitstream to the Main 12 Still Picture profile in the format range extensions profiles is indicated by general_profile_idc being equal to 68.
Conformance of a bitstream to the Main 12 4:4:4 Still Picture or Main 16 4:4:4 Still Picture profiles in the format range extensions profiles is indicated by general_profile_idc being equal to 100].
Ikai may not explicitly disclose wherein two least significant bits (LSBs).
However, Rosewarne discloses wherein two least significant bits (LSBs) of an indicator are combined to indicate a characteristic for the profile [Rosewarne: ¶ [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.sub.--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.sub.--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 ¶ [0199]: In the arrangement of the video decoder 134 that supports more constrained profiles (e.g., `Main 4:4:4 12 Intra` or `Main 4:4:4 10 Intra`) as described above, the output of the video decoder 134 approximates the output of a conforming decoder, with a reduction in magnitude corresponding to the reduction in the bit-depth of the video decoder 134 compared to a conforming decoder, which affects the least significant bits. Where the display device 136 supports less bit-depth than the bit-depth used in the encoded bitstream 312, the complexity of the video decoder 134 may be reduced.].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the profile indication based on LSB of Rosewarne with the processing of Ikai in order to provide more efficient coding, reducing computational load.
Regarding Claims 2 and 14, Ikai in view of Rosewarne disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 1 and 13, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Ikai in view of Rosewarne discloses wherein the general profile indicator is represented as a syntax element general_profile_idc and has a predetermined number of bits [Ikai: Col. 89, ll. 15-23].
Regarding Claims 3 and 15, Ikai in view of Rosewarne disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 1 and 13, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Ikai in view of Rosewarne discloses wherein the profile is a Main 16 4:4:4 profile, and conformance of the bitstream to the Main 16 4:4:4 profile is indicated by the general profile indicator being equal to 35 [Ikai: Col. 89; and FIG. 15-17; where the specific value of a syntax does not appear to be anything other than an obvious variant, requiring little more than normal experimentation and may, in fact, be arbitrary (including claims 3-5, 7-10, and 15-17)].
Regarding Claims 4 and 16, Ikai in view of Rosewarne disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 1 and 13, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Ikai in view of Rosewarne discloses wherein the profile is a Main 16 4:4:4 Intra profile, and conformance of the bitstream to the Main 16 4:4:4 Intra profile is indicated by the general profile indicator being equal to 43 [Ikai: Col. 89; and FIG. 15-17].
Regarding Claims 5 and 17, Ikai in view of Rosewarne disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 1 and 13, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Ikai in view of Rosewarne discloses wherein the profile is a Main 16 4:4:4 Still Picture profile, and conformance of the bitstream to the Main 16 4:4:4 Still Picture profile is indicated by the general profile indicator being equal to 99 [Ikai: Col. 89; and FIG. 15-17].
Regarding Claim 7, Ikai in view of Rosewarne disclose(s) all the limitations of Claim 6, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Ikai in view of Rosewarne discloses wherein a value of the two LSBs of the general profile indicator is "00" and indicates that the profile is an 8-bit profile [Rosewarne: ¶ [0195]: In other profiles (e.g. `Main 4:4:4 12 Intra`), the extended_precision_processing_flag is constrained to always be zero (`0`). Another example are the `bit_depth_luma_minus8` and `bit_depth_chroma_minus8` syntax elements. In the `Main 4:4:4 12 Intra` profile, the `bit_depth_luma_minus8` and `bit_depth_chroma_minus8` syntax elements are constrained to have values from zero (`0`) to four (`4`), implying that bit-depths from 8- to 12-bits are allowable. In the `Main 4:4:4 16 Intra` profile, the `bit_depth_luma_minus8` and `bit_depth_chroma_minus8` syntax elements are unconstrained by the set of profiles to which the encoded bitstream 312 belongs. In this case, a default constraint of values from zero (`0`) to eight (`8`) applies, implying that bit-depths from 8- to 16-bits are allowable in the `Main 4:4:4 16 Intra` profile].
Regarding Claim 8, Ikai in view of Rosewarne disclose(s) all the limitations of Claim 6, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Ikai in view of Rosewarne discloses wherein a value of the two LSBs of the general profile indicator is "01" and indicates that the profile is a 10-bit profile [Rosewarne: ¶ [0195]].
Regarding Claim 9, Ikai in view of Rosewarne disclose(s) all the limitations of Claim 6, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Ikai in view of Rosewarne discloses wherein a value of the two LSBs of the general profile indicator is "10" and indicates that the profile is a 12-bit profile [Rosewarne: ¶ [0195]].
Regarding Claim 10, Ikai in view of Rosewarne disclose(s) all the limitations of Claim 6, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Ikai in view of Rosewarne discloses wherein a value of the two LSBs of the general profile indicator is "11" and indicates that the profile is a 16-bit profile [Rosewarne: ¶ [0195]].
Regarding Claims 11, Ikai in view of Rosewarne disclose(s) all the limitations of Claim 1, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Ikai in view of Rosewarne discloses wherein the conversion includes encoding the target video block into the bitstream [Ikai: Col 81, ll. 1-2: In the example illustrated in FIG. 1, source device 102 may include any device configured to encode video data and transmit encoded video data to communications medium 110].
Regarding Claims 12, Ikai in view of Rosewarne disclose(s) all the limitations of Claim 1 and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Ikai in view of Rosewarne discloses wherein the conversion includes decoding the target video block from the bitstream [Ikai: Col. 4, ll. 3-4: a method of decoding video data comprises receiving profile tier level syntax].
Regarding Claims 21 and 22, Ikai in view of Rosewarne disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 19 and 20, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Ikai in view of Rosewarne discloses wherein the general profile indicator is represented as a syntax element general_profile_idc and has a predetermined number of bits, or wherein the profile is a Main 16 4:4:4 profile, and conformance of the bitstream to the Main 16 4:4:4 profile is indicated by the general profile indicator being equal to 35, or wherein the profile is a Main 16 4:4:4 Intra profile, and conformance of the bitstream to the Main 16 4:4:4 Intra profile is indicated by the general profile indicator being equal to 43, or wherein the profile is a Main 16 4:4:4 Still Picture profile, and conformance of the bitstream to the Main 16 4:4:4 Still Picture profile is indicated by the general profile indicator being equal to 99 [Ikai: Col. 90: ll. 49-63: Conformance of a bitstream to Monochrome 12, Monochrome 16, Main 12, Main 10 4:2:2, Main 12 4:2:2, Main 12 4:4:4, Main 12 Intra, Main 12 4:2:2 Intra, Main 4:4:4 Intra, Main 12 4:4:4 Intra, Main 16 4:4:4 or Main 16 4:4:4 Intra profiles in the format range extensions profiles is indicated by general_profile_idc being equal to 4 with the additional indications specified in Table 17.
Conformance of a bitstream to Main 12 4:4:4, Main 12 4:4:4 Intra, Main 16 4:4:4 or Main 16 4:4:4 Intra profiles in the format range extensions profiles is indicated by general_profile_idc being equal to 36.
Conformance of a bitstream to the Main 12 Still Picture profile in the format range extensions profiles is indicated by general_profile_idc being equal to 68.
Conformance of a bitstream to the Main 12 4:4:4 Still Picture or Main 16 4:4:4 Still Picture profiles in the format range extensions profiles is indicated by general_profile_idc being equal to 100].
Conclusion
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 JONATHAN R MESSMORE whose telephone number is (571)272-2773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST/EDT.
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 at 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.
/JONATHAN R MESSMORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights