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, see pp.7-9, filed March 16, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 6, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 newly considered prior art.
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 1-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claim 1 partially recites “determining, in the one or more NAL units of the current picture, a last VCL NAL unit based on a NAL unit type for a VCL NAL unit”. The Applicant indicated that support for said limitation could be found in at least paragraph 186 in the originally filed specification. Paragraph 186 of the originally filed specification recites:
“In order to solve the above-described problem, embodiments of the present disclosure can provide new semantics for the P-bit based on the following aspects. Depending on the embodiment, the following aspects may be implemented individually or in combination of two or more.”
Paragraph 186 is followed by 4 aspects describing different cases. None of the aspects described in paragraphs 186-190 have support for the limitation “determining, in the one or more NAL units of the current picture, a last VCL NAL unit based on a NAL unit type for a VCL NAL unit”.
The Examiner was not able to identify in any other passage of the specification support for the feature of “determining … a last VCL NAL unit based on a NAL unit type for a VCL NAL unit”.
Examiner’s Note: The same rejection applies to independent claims 6 and 11.
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, 5-6, 10-11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (“RTP Payload Format for Versatile Video Coding (VCC)”, draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-vvc-10, July 9, 2021) in view of Wenger et al. (US 2021/0306443) further in view of Choi et al. (US2021/0266599).
Regarding claim 1 Zhao discloses a method comprising:
obtaining one or more fragmentation units (FUs) from an image signal (when a NAL unit is fragmented and conveyed within Fragmentation Units (FUs), it is referred to as a fragmented NAL unit – (p.27, section 4.3.3);
extracting one or more network abstraction layer (NAL) units for a current picture from the one or more FUs (when an RTP packet carries an FU, all RTP packets from the first FU (with the S field equal to 1) of the fragmented NAL unit up to the last FU (with the E field equal to 1) of the fragmented NAL unit are collected – p.33, 4th paragraph); and
decoding the current picture based on the one or more NAL units (decoding – p.34, 3rd paragraph),
wherein each FU of the one or more FUs includes first header information representing whether the FU includes a last byte of a last NAL unit of the current picture (P bit, when set to 1, the P bit indicates the last NAL unit of a coded picture, i.e., the last byte of the FU payload is also the last byte of the coded picture – p.29, P bit description; the P bit is included in the FU header – p.28),
wherein, based on a first value(1) of the first header information, the first header information identifies that the FU includes the last byte of the last NAL unit (P bit, when set to 1, the P bit indicates the last NAL unit of a coded picture, i.e., the last byte of the FU payload is also the last byte of the coded picture – p.29, P bit description; the P bit is included in the FU header – p.28), and
wherein, based on a second value(0) of the first header information, the first header information identifies that the FU includes no last fragment of the last NAL unit (when P is set to “0” it indicates the FU payload is not the last fragment of a coded picture – p. 29).
However, fails to explicitly mention a video coding layer (VCL) NAL unit; and determining, in the one or more NAL units of the current picture, a last VCL NAL unit based on a NAL unit type for a VCL NAL unit.
In his disclosure Wenger teaches a video coding layer (VCL) NAL unit (Figure 7 shows a VCL NAL unit header with two FU structures – Figure 7, [0018]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Wenger into the teachings of Zhao because such incorporation improves the coding efficiency by identifying the last packet of a given coded picture (paragraph [0037]).
However, fails to explicitly disclose determining, in the one or more NAL units of the current picture, a last VCL NAL unit based on a NAL unit type for a VCL NAL unit.
In his disclosure Choi teaches determining, in the one or more NAL units of the current picture, a last VCL NAL unit based on a NAL unit type for a VCL NAL unit (if the nalX is of a type of AUD_NUT, with a NAL unit type value 20, it is certain that the nalX is the last NAL unit of the current AU – [0026]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Choi into the teachings of Zhao because such incorporation improves the delivering of video over IP networks by the signaling of access unit (frame) boundary information for supporting individual access of frame(s) (paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 5 Zhao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein all FUs following a lost FU are removed from the NAL unit, based on at least one FU of the NAL unit for the current picture being lost (MANES can remove those FUs where the leading FUs belonging to the same NAL unit have been lost – p.63, section 10. Congestion Control, 4th paragraph).
Regarding claim 6 Zhao discloses A method comprising:
encoding a current picture to generate one or more network abstraction layer (NAL) units for the current picture (encoding – p.63);
packetizing the one or more NAL units to generate one or more fragmentation units (FUs) for the current picture (packetization of VVC coded NAL units into RTP packets using fragment units – p.15, section 1.2 Overview of the Payload Format); and
generating an image signal for the current picture based on the one or more FUs, wherein each FU of the one or more FUs includes first header information representing whether the FU includes a last byte of the last NAL unit of the current picture (Figure 10 shows the structure of a FU Header that includes the semantic P that indicates the last NAL unit of a coded picture – p.29; P bit, when set to 1, the P bit indicates the last NAL unit of a coded picture, i.e., the last byte of the FU payload is also the last byte of the coded picture – p.29, P bit description; the P bit is included in the FU header – p.28),
wherein, based on a first value(1) of the first header information, the first header information identifies that the FU includes the last byte of the last NAL unit (P bit, when set to 1, the P bit indicates the last NAL unit of a coded picture, i.e., the last byte of the FU payload is also the last byte of the coded picture – p.29, P bit description; the P bit is included in the FU header – p.28), and
wherein, based on a second value(0) of the first header information, the first header information identifies that the FU includes no last fragment of the last NAL unit (when P is set to “0” it indicates the FU payload is not the last fragment of a coded picture – p. 29).
However, fails to explicitly mention a video coding layer (VCL) NAL unit; and determining, among the one or more NAL units of the current picture, a last video coding layer (VCL) NAL unit.
In his disclosure Wenger teaches a video coding layer (VCL) NAL unit (Figure 7 shows a VCL NAL unit header with two FU structures – Figure 7, [0018]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Wenger into the teachings of Zhao because such incorporation improves the coding efficiency by identifying the last packet of a given coded picture (paragraph [0037]).
However, fails to explicitly mention a video coding layer (VCL) NAL unit; and determining, among the one or more NAL units of the current picture, a last video coding layer (VCL) NAL unit.
In his disclosure Choi teaches determining, among the one or more NAL units of the current picture, a last video coding layer (VCL) NAL unit (if the nalX is of a type of AUD_NUT, with a NAL unit type value 20, it is certain that the nalX is the last NAL unit of the current AU – [0026]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Choi into the teachings of Zhao because such incorporation improves the delivering of video over IP networks by the signaling of access unit (frame) boundary information for supporting individual access of frame(s) (paragraph 2).
Claim 10 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 5.
Claim 11 corresponds to the apparatus performing the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Claim 15 corresponds to the apparatus performing the method of claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 5.
Claim(s) 2-4, 7-9, 12-13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (“RTP Payload Format for Versatile Video Coding (VCC)”, draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-vvc-10, July 9, 2021) in view of Wenger et al. (US 2021/0306443) further in view of Choi et al. (US 2021/0266599) further in view of Lim et al. (US 2022/0239933).
Regarding claim 2 Zhao discloses the method of claim 1. Zhao discloses certain non-VCL NAL units can often be aggregated with VCL NAL units – p.32, section 5. Packetization Rules).
However, fails to explicitly disclose at least one non-VCL NAL unit following the last VCL NAL unit.
In his disclosure Lim teaches it is known in the art of video coding for at least one non-VCL NAL unit to follow the last VCL NAL unit (non-VCL NAL units such as Suffix SEI may be signaled after the last VCL NAL unit – [0261]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Lim into the teachings of Zhao because such incorporation yields the predictable result of improving the compression efficiency (paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 3 Zhao discloses the method of claim 2. However, fails to explicitly disclose based on the second value(0) of the first header information, the first header information represents that the FU includes a byte of the non-VCL NAL unit.
In his disclosure Wenger teaches based on a second value(0) of the first header information, the first header information represents that the fragmentation unit includes a byte of the non-VCL NAL unit (a VVC NAL unit header may include two bytes (16 bits). The forbidden-zero bit F (401) is always zero. 5 bits are used to represent the NAL unit type (404), implying that there can be up to 32 types of NAL units or NAL-unit like structures. VCL NAL units fall into a numerical range between zero and 12, and non-VCL NAL units types range between 13 and 31 – [0039]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Wenger into the teachings of Zhao because such incorporation improves the coding efficiency by identifying the last packet of a given coded picture (paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 4 Zhao discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the first header information is kept constant for all FUs for the current picture, regardless of whether a FU for the non-VCL NAL unit is lost (certain non-VCL NAL units can often be aggregated with VCL NAL units – p.32, section 5. Packetization Rules; if an FU is lost and the receiver is known to be prepared to handle incomplete NAL units, then the following fragmentation units are not discarded – p.29).
Regarding claim 7 Zhao discloses the method of claim 6. Zhao discloses certain non-VCL NAL units can often be aggregated with VCL NAL units – p.32, section 5. Packetization Rules).
However, fails to explicitly disclose at least one non-VCL NAL unit following the last VCL NA L unit.
In his disclosure Lim teaches it is known in the art of video coding for at least one non-VCL NAL unit to follow the last VCL NA L unit (non-VCL NAL units such as Suffix SEI may be signaled after the last VCL NAL unit – [0261]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Lim into the teachings of Zhao because such incorporation yields the predictable result of improving the compression efficiency (paragraph [0020]).
Claim 8 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 3.
Regarding claim 9 Zhao discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the first header information is kept constant for all FUs for the current picture, regardless of whether a FU for the non-VCL NAL unit is lost (certain non-VCL NAL units can often be aggregated with VCL NAL units – p.32, section 5. Packetization Rules; if an FU is lost and the receiver is known to be prepared to handle incomplete NAL units, then the following fragmentation units are not discarded – p.29).
Claim 12 corresponds to the apparatus performing the method of claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 2.
Claim 13 corresponds to the apparatus performing the method of claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 3.
Claim 14 corresponds to the apparatus performing the method of claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 4.
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 MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON whose telephone number is (571)270-1103. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 PM.
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, CHRISTOPHER S 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.
/MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON/Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights