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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities: on lines 2-3 of the amended portion, there appears to be a typo in “such that the each”. Further on line 3 of claim 16, “the at least one non-transitory memory” is referred to when “non-transitory” was canceled in the previous limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 16, 18-29 and 31-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouedraogo et al. (WO 2020/178065), hereinafter Ouedraogo in view of Hannuksela et al. (“AHGY9/AHG12: Relaxing an APS constraint”, JVET-R0149-v1, 15-24 April 2020), hereinafter Hannuksela. Ouedraogo and Hannuksela were cited in the Applicant’s IDS dated 1/3/25 and copies have been provided by the Applicant on 1/3/25.
Regarding claims 16 and 29, Ouedraogo discloses an apparatus comprising
at least one processor (fig. 15, #1501); and
at least one memory including computer program code (p. 56, lines 13-19 and fig. 15);
the at least one non-transitory memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor (p. 56, line 31 to p. 57 line 1 and fig. 15), cause the apparatus at least to perform:
dividing pictures of one or more input picture sequences into a plurality of subpictures (p. 3, lines 19-20, figs. 1a-1b and 2b);
encoding each of the plurality subpictures into a plurality of subpicture comprising different quality and/or resolution (p. 1, lines 15-29, figs. 1a and 5);
partitioning the plurality of subpicture versions into one or more subpicture groups (figs. 1a-1b and 5); and
allocating a range of adaptive loop filter parameter set identifiers for each of the one or more subpicture groups (p. 17, lines 18-29); and
dividing the range of adaptive loop filter parameter set identifiers for each subpicture version such that the each subpicture version comprises a unique range of adaptive loop filter parameter set identifiers (p. 19, lines 23-27).
Ouedraogo does not explicitly disclose encoding each of the plurality subpictures into a plurality of subpicture versions comprising different quality and/or resolution.
However, Hannuksela teaches encoding each of the plurality subpictures into a plurality of subpicture versions comprising different quality and/or resolution (Hannuksela p. 2, section 1.2); and
allocating a range of adaptive loop filter parameter set identifiers for each of the one or more subpicture groups (Hannuksela p. 2, section 1.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ouedraogo’s apparatus with the missing limitations as taught by Hannuksela to avoid loss in rate-distortion performance (Hannuksela p. 2, section 1.2).
Regarding claims 18 and 31, Ouedraogo in view of Hannuksela teaches the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform:
partitioning the plurality of subpicture versions into a corresponding number of subpicture groups, each comprising one subpicture version (Ouedraogo p. 19, lines 23-27, figs. 5 and 14); and
allocating each subpicture version a unique range of adaptive loop filter parameter set identifiers (Ouedraogo p. 19, lines 23-27).
Regarding claims 19 and 32, Ouedraogo in view of Hannuksela teaches the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform:
partitioning the plurality of subpicture versions into at least one subpicture group comprising the plurality of subpicture versions (Ouedraogo figs. 5 and 14); and
allocating each subpicture group a unique range of adaptive loop filter parameter set identifiers (Ouedraogo p. 19, lines 23-27).
Regarding claims 20 and 33, Ouedraogo discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform:
determining a total number of allocated adaptive loop filter parameter set identifiers for the one or more subpicture groups (Ouedraogo figs. 5 and 14).
Ouedraogo does not explicitly disclose determining a total number of allocated adaptive loop filter parameter set identifiers for the one or more subpicture groups such that a number of adaptive loop filter parameter set identifiers in any bitstream merged from the one or more subpicture groups is less than or equal to a maximum number of adaptive loop filter parameter set identifiers.
However, Hannuksela teaches determining a total number of allocated adaptive loop filter parameter set identifiers for the one or more subpicture groups such that a number of adaptive loop filter parameter set identifiers in any bitstream merged from the one or more subpicture groups is less than or equal to a maximum number of adaptive loop filter parameter set identifiers (Hannuksela p. 1, section 1.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ouedraogo’s apparatus with the missing limitations as taught by Hannuksela to bound the local memory usage (Hannuksela p. 1, section 1.1).
Regarding claims 21 and 34, Ouedraogo in view of Hannuksela teaches the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform:
determining the one or more subpicture groups obtaining an improvement on a coding rate distortion (RD) performance via usage of adaptive loop filter parameter set identifiers (Ouedraogo p. 1, lines 24-28, p. 19, lines 1-3, line 30, p. 20, line 18 to end of table, p. 34, lines 17-22 and Hannuksela p. 2, section 1.2); and
determining a higher number of adaptive loop filter parameter set identifiers to be allocated to said one or more subpicture groups (Hannuksela p. 2, section 1.2).
The same motivation and analysis for claim 16 applies to claim 21.
Regarding claims 22 and 35, Ouedraogo in view of Hannuksela teaches the apparatus according claim 16, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform:
grouping co-located subpictures versions across different quality versions into one subpicture group (Ouedraogo figs. 5 and 14).
Regarding claim 23, Ouedraogo in view of Hannuksela teaches the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform:
allocating one or more same adaptive loop filter parameter set identifiers to a plurality of the one or more subpicture groups, wherein subpicture groups with the same adaptive loop filter parameter set identifiers values but different adaptive loop filter parameter set content are configured not to be merged into a same bitstream in response to occurrence of one or more predetermined merging constraints (Ouedraogo p. 18, line 16 to p. 19, line 3, p. 1, lines 23-28, fig. 5 and Hannuksela p. 2, section 1.2).
The same motivation and analysis for claim 16 applies to claim 23.
Regarding claim 24, Ouedraogo in view of Hannuksela teaches the apparatus according to claim 23, wherein the one or more predetermined merging constraints comprise one or more of the following:
a maximum number of spherically adjacent subpicture groups that are covered by high-resolution and/or high-quality subpicture groups (Ouedraogo p. 1, lines 23-28); or
a predetermined viewing orientation range (Ouedraogo p. 1, lines 23-28 and p. 9, line 16 to p. 10, line 2).
Regarding claim 25, Ouedraogo in view of Hannuksela teaches the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform:
providing a control signal to control more than one video encoder or more than one video encoder instance, the control signal comprising said range of adaptive loop filter parameter set identifiers that are allowed to be used in encoding (Ouedraogo p. 46, lines 18-24, p. 17, line 23 and p. 19, line 16 to p. 20, line 2).
Regarding claim 26, Ouedraogo in view of Hannuksela teaches the apparatus according to claim 25, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform:
formatting of the control signal as one or more optional media parameters (Ouedraogo p. 46, lines 18-24 and p. 19, line 16 to p. 20, line 2).
Regarding claim 27, Ouedraogo in view of Hannuksela teaches the apparatus according to claim 25, wherein the control signal is, or is a part of, a configuration file defining encoding settings used by an encoder (Ouedraogo p. 46, lines 18-24 and p. 19, line 16 to p. 20, line 2).
Regarding claim 28, Ouedraogo in view of Hannuksela teaches the apparatus according to claim 25, wherein the control signal is, or is a part of, an application programming interface used to control an encoder (Ouedraogo p. 46, lines 18-24 and p. 19, line 16 to p. 20, line 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/2/25 in regards to the previously presented portions of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pgs. 9-11 of the Applicant’s Response, the Applicant argues that Ouedraogo does not teach the amended limitations of the independent claims.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection was based on a combination of references Ouedraogo and Hannuksela. Ouedraogo was already cited to disclose subpicture groups with different quality and/or resolution (i.e. what versions comprise according to claims 16 and 29, Ouedraogo p. 1, lines 15-29, figs. 1a and 5) and allocating adaptive loop filter parameter set identifiers (Ouedraogo p. 17, lines 18-29). Hannuksela was already cited to teach “versions” and also ALF APS IDs for subpicture versions (Hannuksela p. 2, section 1.2). The amended limitation only adds that the range of identifiers is unique, for which Ouedraogo was cited to further teach (Ouedraogo p. 19, lines 23-27). Therefore, the combination of Ouedraogo and Hannuksela teaches the amended limitations of the independent claims.
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 MATTHEW KWAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, 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.
/MATTHEW K KWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights