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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 28, 2026 has been entered.
Applicant(s) Response to Official Action
The response filed on April 3, 2026 has been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 6 and 11 have been amended. Claim 21 and 22 have been newly added. Claims 19 and 20 have been cancelled. Accordingly, Claims 1 - 18, 21 and 22 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has cancelled claims 19 and 20. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed January 28, 2026 is moot. Accordingly, the rejection is withdrawn..
Applicant’s arguments see pages 7 – 11 with respect to the rejection of Claims 1 - 4, 6 – 9, 11 – 14 and 16 - 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LEE et al., (US 2016/0316210 A1) have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner’s response to the presented arguments follows below:
Applicant argues on page 7 that “The application also describes relationships among layers, including inter-layer prediction and dependency relationships, and defines layer sets and output layer sets based on the dependency relationships” and further that “The application also describes determining an output layer set based not only on output layer flags but also on dependency relationships among layers indicated in the VPS. Applicant's Published Application at Par. [0120] and [0175]”. However, Par. [0120] merely describes examples of video parameter set VPS for decoding data made up of at least one layer by listing “inter-layer dependency relationship (direct dependency flag direct_dependency_flag[i][j] (SYNVPS0C in FIG. 12)” without any further description or definition of the dependency relation to output layer sets. Par. [0120] further describes “the set of output layers constituting the output layer set, output layer set information (default output layer identifier default_target_output_layer_idc, output layer flag output_layer_flag[i][j], etc.) specifying PTL information etc. (SYNVPS0G to SYNVPS0K in FIG. 12)” without any relation to dependency. Par. [0175] merely lists different parameter sets decoding means without any relation between dependency and output layer sets. Par. [0175] merely states that “inter-layer dependence information decoding means for decoding the inter-layer dependence information” without any description or definition of how it relates to output layer sets. Accordingly, the amendment fails to comply with the written description requirement. LEE discloses dependency relationships among layers in Par. [0091] – [0092] information on layers sets may be specified in a VPS extension of Table 6, direct_dependency_flag. Table 6 illustrates the information on the layer sets in the VPS extension, wherein session negotiations may be performed using the output layer sets information in the VPS extension. Accordingly, LEE discloses the amended limitations as claimed.
Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended Claims 1, 6 and 11 recite the limitation “wherein deriving the output layer set includes determining the layers included in the output layer set based on dependency relationships among the layers indicated in the VPS,”. Nowhere in the specification does it reference or describe determining output layer sets based on dependency relationships among layers. The specification merely provides in Par. [0120] examples of video parameter set VPS for decoding data made up of at least one layer by listing “inter-layer dependency relationship (direct dependency flag direct_dependency_flag[i][j] (SYNVPS0C in FIG. 12)” without any further description or definition of the dependency relationship to output layer sets. Par. [0120] further describes “the set of output layers constituting the output layer set, output layer set information (default output layer identifier default_target_output_layer_idc, output layer flag output_layer_flag[i][j], etc.) specifying PTL information etc. (SYNVPS0G to SYNVPS0K in FIG. 12)” without any relation to dependency. Par. [0175] merely lists different parameter sets decoding means without any relation between dependency and output layer sets. Par. [0175] merely states that “inter-layer dependence information decoding means for decoding the inter-layer dependence information” without any description or definition of how it relates to output layer sets. Hence, it is not found how, when or where, deriving output layer sets is based on dependency relations among layers. The specification does not support the interpretation of the amended claim limitation.
Newly added Claims 22 recites the limitation “determining candidate layers based on the output layer flags and determining the output layer set from the candidate layers”. Nowhere in the specification does it reference or describe candidate layers. Hence, it is not found how, when or where, determining the layers in the output layer set includes determining candidate layers. The specification does not support the interpretation of the newly added claim.
Therefore, the claim language is not supported by the original disclosure and therefore constitutes new matter. (See also 37 C.F.R. 1.121(f), MPEP 608.04, 706.03(o)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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 - 4, 6 - 9, 11 - 14, 16 - 18, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LEE (US 2016/0316210 A1) referred to as LEE hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 1, LEE teaches a method of decoding implemented by a video decoding device (Par. [0001], methods and apparatuses for encoding and decoding a video supporting a plurality of layers in a bitstream), the method comprising:
receiving, by the video decoding device, a bitstream (Fig. 2, Par. [0047] The video decoding apparatus 200 (i.e. video decoding device) receives an input bitstream output from the encoding apparatus and decodes the bitstream in an intra mode or inter mode to output a reconstituted picture, that is, a reconstructed picture) having a set of layers constituting a layer set (Fig. 3, Par. [0054]-[0058], a plurality of layers (i.e. layer set)) and a video parameter set (VPS) (Par. [0084], information on layer sets may be specified in a VPS extension of Table 5) that includes a syntax element indicating a number of layers included in the layer set and specified by the VPS (Table 4 and Table 5, Par. [0178] NumLayersInIdList (i.e. syntax element) specifies a number of layers included in a layer set) and a layer identifier for identifying a layer included in the layer set (Par [0088] value of nuh_layer_id equal to j is included in a layer identifier list), and an output layer flag (Table 4 and Table 5, output_layer_flag[ i ][ j ]) for designating whether a layer included in the layer set is an output layer (Par. [0180] output_layer_flag[ ][ ] is signaled based on a unit of output layer set in the VPS extension);
deriving, by the video decoding device, a number of output layers constituting an output layer set (Par. [0083], NumLayersInIdList as a variable specifying a number of layers in a layer identifier (ID) list needs to be entropy-decoded as a value calculated from information on layer sets specified after vps_extension_offset in Table 3, that is, layer_id_included_flag[i][j]), based on values of output layer flags associated with layers in the layer set (Par. [0185] output_layer_flag[i][j] equal to 1 indicates that a j-th layer in the i-th output layer set is a target output layer (i.e. number of output layers), and output_layer_flag[i] [j] equal to 0 indicates the j-th layer in the i-th output layer set is not a target output layer),
wherein deriving the output layer set includes determining the layers included in the output layer set based on dependency relationships among the layers indicated in the VPS (Par. [0092] Table 6 illustrates the information on the layer sets in the VPS extension, wherein session negotiations may be performed, without entropy decoding, using the output layer sets information in the VPS extension, direct_dependency_flag), and
wherein the number of output layers in the output layer set is one or more (Par. [0089], numLayersInIdList[i] and layerSetLayerIdList[i] may be obtained as follows, i being in a range of 1 (i.e. one or more) to vps_number_layer_sets_minus1),
decoding, by the video decoding device, information from one or more layers included in the output layer set (Par. [0178] NumLayersInIdList specifies a number of layers included in a layer set, and TargetDecLayerIdList specifies a nuh_layer_id value of a layer to decode included in a layer set); and
outputting, by the video decoding device, the decoded information from the one or more layers included in the output layer set (Par. [0178] TargetOptLayerIdList indicates a nuh_layer_id value of a layer to output included in a layer set).
Regarding Claim 2, LEE discloses claim 1. LEE further discloses wherein the output layer flag is represented by a syntax element flag [i][j], and the output layer flag[i][j] is a flag indicating whether the j-th layer included in the i-th output layer set(OLS) is an output layer or not (Par. [0185] In Equation 9, output_layer_flag[i][j] equal to 1 indicates that a j-th layer in the i-th output layer set is a target output layer, and output_layer_flag[i] [j] equal to 0 indicates the j-th layer in the i-th output layer set is not a target output layer).
Regarding Claim 3, LEE discloses claim 2. LEE further discloses wherein flag [i][j] equal to 1 specifies that the j-th layer is an output layer of the i- th OLS (Par. [0185] In Equation 9, output_layer_flag[i][j] equal to 1 indicates that a j-th layer in the i-th output layer set is a target output layer, and output_layer_flag[i] [j] equal to 0 indicates the j-th layer in the i-th output layer set is not a target output layer).
Regarding Claim 4, LEE discloses claim 1. LEE further discloses wherein the syntax element indicating the number of layers that are included in the layer set and that are specified by the VPS is represented by vps_max_layers_minus1 (Par. [0135] In Equation 4, layer_id_in_nuh of reference layer pictures refers to nuh_layer_id present in a VCL NAL unit header. Par. [0136] According to Equation 4, it is determined which sub-layer is used as a reference layer from a direct reference layer among sub-layers having a tid (Temporal) value of 0 to vps_max_sub_layers_minus1 with respect to each layer (0˜vps_max_layers_minus1) in a high level (for example, VPS)).
Regarding Claim 16, LEE discloses claim 2. LEE further discloses wherein output_layer_flag [i][j] equal to 0 specifies that the j-th layer is not an output layer of the i-th OLS (Par. [0185] In Equation 9, output_layer_flag[i][j] equal to 1 indicates that a j-th layer in the i-th output layer set is a target output layer, and output_layer_flag[i] [j] equal to 0 indicates the j-th layer in the i-th output layer set is not a target output layer).
Regarding Claim 21, LEE discloses claim 1. LEE further discloses wherein the dependency relationships among the layers are indicated by the syntax elements included in the video parameter set (VPS) (Par. [0091] information on layers sets may be specified in a VPS extension of Table 6, direct_dependency_flag).
Regarding Claim 22, LEE discloses claim 1. LEE further discloses wherein determining the layers included in the output layer set includes determining candidate layers based on the output layer flags and determining the output layer set from the candidate layers based on the dependency relationships among the layers (Par. [0089] numLayersInIdList[i] and layerSetLayerIdList[i] may be obtained as follows, i being in a range of 1 to vps_number_layer_sets_minus1 (i.e. candidate layers))
Apparatus Claims 6 – 9 and 17 are drawn to the corresponding method claimed in Claims 1 – 4 and 16, respectively. Therefore Claims 6 – 9 and 17 correspond to method Claims 1 – 4 and 16, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above. Claim 6 further recites a receiver (See LEE, Fig. 2, Par. [0047] The video decoding apparatus 200 (i.e. video decoder)), a memory and a processor (See LEE, Par. [0018] an apparatus for decoding multilayer video data including a memory configured to store the video data and a processor configured to receive a video parameter set (VPS) including visual signal information signaled per layer in the VPS and decode video data based on the received visual signal information signaled per layer in the VPS).
Non-transitory computer-readable medium claims 11 – 14 and 18 are drawn to the corresponding method claimed in Claims 1 – 4 and 16, respectively. Therefore Claims 11 – 14 and 18 correspond to method Claims 1 – 4 and 16, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
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 5, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE (US 2016/0316210 A1) referred to as LEE hereinafter, in view of Wang et al., (US 2014/0301484 A1) referred to as Wang hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 5, LEE discloses claim 1. LEE further discloses wherein the VPS further includes VPS identifier (video_parameter_set_id), which is used for identifying the VPS (Par. [0079], Table 3, vps_video_parameter_set_id u(1)).
LEE does not specifically teach he VPS identifier is referred by the SPS. Therefore. LEE fails to explicitly teach the VPS further includes VPS identifier (video_parameter_set_id), which is used for identifying the VPS referred to by a sequence parameter set (SPS).
However, Wang teaches the VPS further includes VPS identifier (video_parameter_set_id) (Table 9, Par. [0223], sps_video_parameter_set_id u(4)), which is used for identifying the VPS referred to by a sequence parameter set (SPS) (Par. [0226] For each layer with nuh_layer_id greater than 0 that refers to the SPS, let layerIdx be set equal to the value for which layer_id_in_nuh[layerIdx] is equal to the nuh_layer_id of the layer).
References LEE and Wang are considered to be analogous art because they relate to plurality of output layer video coding apparatus and processes. Therefore, it would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifying the VPS identifier referred to by a sequence parameter set (SPS) as taught by Wang in the invention of LEE. This modification would allow decoding video data of the first and second layers based on information from the video parameter set and the first sequence parameter set (See Wang, Par. [0045]).
Apparatus Claim 10 is drawn to the corresponding method claimed in Claim 5. Therefore, claim 10 corresponds to method Claim 5, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Non-transitory computer-readable medium Claim 15 is drawn to the corresponding method claimed in Claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 corresponds to method Claim 5, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Conclusion
The prior art references made of record are not relied upon but are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. He et al. (US 2015/0189322 A1) teaches sub-bitstream extraction process for HEV extensions directed to constraints on the output layer set for sub-bitstream extraction process. Chen et al. (US 10,567,804 B2) teaches carriage of HEVC multi-layer extension bitstreams.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to SUSAN E HODGES whose telephone number is (571)270-0498. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 8:00 am (EST) to 4:00 pm (EST).
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Brian T. Pendleton, can be reached on (571) . 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Susan E. Hodges/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights