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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 32-51 were previously filed. Claims 32-34, 36-46, and 48-51 have been amended. Accordingly claims 32-51 remain pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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) 32-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 20140085416 A1) in view of Choi et al. (US 20150049803 A1).
Regarding Claim 32, Chang et al. teaches a device for decoding media content (Abstract), comprising:
a processor (Paragraph 28) configured to:
obtain video data (Paragraphs 8-9; Paragraphs 18-21);
obtain, for a video block, a supplemental information indicator, wherein the supplemental information indicator indicates whether depth information associated with the video block is used at a coding unit (CU) level (Paragraphs 8-9; Paragraphs 18-21); and
decode the video block based on the supplemental information indicator associated with the video block (Paragraphs 8-9; Paragraphs 18-21).
However, Chang et al. does not explicitly teach that the supplemental information indicator indicates whether depth information associated with the video block is present in the video data at a coding unit (CU) level.
Choi et al., however, teaches that the supplemental information indicator indicates whether depth information associated with the video block is present in the video data at a coding unit (CU) level (Paragraphs 227-236; Paragraphs 243-248).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the coding device of Chang et al. to include the determination of presence of depth information as in Choi et al. in order to improve coding efficiency (See Choi et al. Paragraphs 85 and 100).
Regarding Claim 33, Chang et al. and Choi et al. teach the device of claim 32, Chang et al. further teaches wherein, based on a condition that the supplemental information indicator indicates that the depth information associated with the video block is used at the CU level, the processor is configured to obtain the depth information associated with the video block from the video data or, based on a condition that the supplemental information indicator indicates that the depth information associated with the video block is not used in the video data at the CU level, the processor is configured to decode the video block without using the depth information associated with the video block (Paragraphs 8-9; Paragraphs 18-21).
However, Chang et al. does not explicitly teach that the supplemental information indicator indicates whether depth information associated with the video block is present in the video data at a coding unit (CU) level or, based on a condition that the supplemental information indicator indicates that the depth information associated with the video block is not present in the video data at the CU level, the processor is configured to decode the video block without obtaining the depth information associated with the video block.
Choi et al., however, teaches that the supplemental information indicator indicates whether depth information associated with the video block is present in the video data at a coding unit (CU) level or, based on a condition that the supplemental information indicator indicates that the depth information associated with the video block is not present in the video data at the CU level, the processor is configured to decode the video block without obtaining the depth information associated with the video block (Paragraphs 227-236; Paragraphs 243-248).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the coding device of Chang et al. to include the determination of presence of depth information as in Choi et al. in order to improve coding efficiency (See Choi et al. Paragraphs 85 and 100).
Regarding Claim 34, Chang et al. and Choi et al. teach the device of claim 32, wherein the processor is configured to: determine that the supplemental information indicator indicates the depth information associated with the video block is used at the CU level; and obtain a depth map from the video data, wherein the depth map indicates depth information associated with a location in the video block, wherein the video block is decoded based on the depth map (Paragraphs 8-11; Paragraphs 18-21).
However, Chang et al. does not explicitly teach that the supplemental information indicator indicates whether depth information associated with the video block is present in the video data at a coding unit (CU) level.
Choi et al., however, teaches that the supplemental information indicator indicates whether depth information associated with the video block is present in the video data at a coding unit (CU) level (Paragraphs 227-236; Paragraphs 243-248).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the coding device of Chang et al. to include the determination of presence of depth information as in Choi et al. in order to improve coding efficiency (See Choi et al. Paragraphs 85 and 100).
Regarding Claim 35, Chang et al. and Choi et al. teach the device of claim 34, Chang et al. further teaches wherein the depth information associated with the location in the video block indicates a distance from a reference point (Paragraphs 22-24).
Regarding Claim 36, Chang et al. and Choi et al. teach the device of claim 32, Chang et al. further teaches wherein the processor is configured to: determine that the supplemental information indicator indicates that the depth information associated with the video block is used at the CU level; and obtain the depth information associated with the video block from the video data, wherein the depth information comprises quantized information that indicates a discontinuity associated with the video block, wherein the video block is decoded using the quantized information (Paragraphs 8-11; Paragraphs 18-21).
However, Chang et al. does not explicitly teach that the supplemental information indicator indicates whether depth information associated with the video block is present in the video data at a coding unit (CU) level.
Choi et al., however, teaches that the supplemental information indicator indicates whether depth information associated with the video block is present in the video data at a coding unit (CU) level (Paragraphs 227-236; Paragraphs 243-248).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the coding device of Chang et al. to include the determination of presence of depth information as in Choi et al. in order to improve coding efficiency (See Choi et al. Paragraphs 85 and 100).
Regarding Claim 37, Chang et al. and Choi et al. teach the device of claim 32, wherein the processor is configured to: determine that the supplemental information indicator indicates that the depth information associated with the video block is used at the CU level; and obtain the depth information associated with the video block from the video data, wherein the depth information comprises coordinate information that defines a line in the video block, and the line in the video block indicates a discontinuity associated with the video block, wherein the video block is decoded using the coordinate information (Paragraphs 8-11; Paragraphs 18-24).
However, Chang et al. does not explicitly teach that the supplemental information indicator indicates whether depth information associated with the video block is present in the video data at a coding unit (CU) level.
Choi et al., however, teaches that the supplemental information indicator indicates whether depth information associated with the video block is present in the video data at a coding unit (CU) level (Paragraphs 227-236; Paragraphs 243-248).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the coding device of Chang et al. to include the determination of presence of depth information as in Choi et al. in order to improve coding efficiency (See Choi et al. Paragraphs 85 and 100).
Encoder claims 38-41 are drawn to the encoder associated with the decoder of claims 32-37 and have substantially similar claim limitations merely performed in the inverse. Encoder claims are rejected for the same reason and using the same reference as discussed above. Chang et al. further teaches a device for encoding media content, comprising: a processor to perform the encoding (Paragraph 28).
Method claims 42-51 are drawn to the method of using corresponding apparatus claims 32-41 and are rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
