DETAILED ACTION
This communication is being filed in response to the submission having a mailing date of (11/28/2025) in which a (3) month Shortened Statutory Period for Response has been set.
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 .
Acknowledgements
Upon new entry, claims (18 -37) remain pending for examination, of which (18, 33) are the two (2) parallel running independent claims on record, being amended. Claims (1 -17) were originally cancelled.
4. Examiner thanks’ Applicant representative (Atty. B. Ailes; R.N. 79,656) for the new list of amendments provided, for the detailed remarks and clarifications, and for the cooperation expediting the case.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, but they’re not persuasive, at least for the following reasons:
5.1. Examiner undersigned considers that the presented combined prior art (PA) on record, very well discloses the principles of the invention as claimed, associated with a VVC tool for codec low latency applications, including the feature-steps of the GDR technique, which for the most part, were part of the common knowledge at the time of the invention.
5.2. Examiner would like to point out that the VVC standard, introduced “Gradual decoding refresh” (GDR) or “Progressive Intra Refresh” (PIR) tools as we knowing, also cited and recreated by Applicant [specs; 0004] and by the PA [Gommelet/Coban] as recorded on file.
5.3. More specifically, - for matching of recovery points and prediction accuracy, GDR differentiates (i.e. examine), coding units (CUs) in “clean/refresh” areas from “dirty/non-refresh” areas, (i.e. the CUs in clean areas should not use any coding information from dirty areas), defined by the exceptions listed, and as shown in Fig. 1; [Gommelet} and also Figs. (5, 8 and 9); [Coban]; …basically because incorrectly decoded information from dirty areas may contaminate the clean areas, which will result in mismatch between encoder and decoder at recovery points (or leaks).
The boundaries between the clean and dirty areas are separately (i.e. treat as …) signaled and used via virtual boundary syntax, embedded in the picture (PPS) header [VVC; version 2020]; that clearly read on the claim limitations and Applicants arguments (…treating each side of a virtual boundary differently based on determining whether the coding tree unit belongs to a refreshed region or to a non-refreshed region; [page 8]).
5.4. Applicant further argues a failure to disclose […treat the virtual boundary as a picture boundary when it is determined that the coding unit belongs to the refreshed region; page 9]; the Examiner respectfully disagrees because under the broadest reasonable interpretation doctrine consisting with the common knowledge and the status of the Art, , at least Coban teaches analogous in Figs. (8-9), steps (402, 404) during data encoding [page 14: Col. 2], and also steps (422, 424) during data decoding; [page 15: Col. 1]; where virtual boundary is/are used as boundary reference based on clean/dirty classification, emphasis added.
5.5. Examiner also notes that Applicant lists a set of well-known GDR feature-steps following the term(s) “obtain/using/examine/treat” that passively indicates - that a function is performed without requiring the functional structure or methodology as a limitation on the claim itself. It is clear that such claim language does not further limit the claims, and does not require a separate reason for rejection; (see MPEP 2111.04). The clause may be given some weight to the extent it provides "meaning and purpose” to the claimed invention, but not when “it simply expresses the intended result” of the invention.
6. Finally, the Office considers Applicant's arguments not persuasive, as the applied rejection on record as a whole, still reads on the new amended claimed construction, establishing the "Prima Facie" case of equivalent disclosures, on the basis of a person of ordinary skills in the art would have recognized the similar elements shown, or the same structural similarities shown, wherein such structure/methodology performs the same identical functions in substantially the same way, able to produce the same identical results.
_ See [MPEP – 2183]. Making a Prima Facie Case of Equivalence).
_ See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1568 (F. Cir. 1990)]; …when similar structure applies;
_ See also Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 54 USPQ2d 1308 (F. Cir. 2000)]; …when identical functionality is specified in the claim, in substantially the same way.
Claim rejection section
35 USC § 103
7. 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 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.
7.1. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ
459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
7.2. Claim (18 -37) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Gommelet; et al. [“Gradual decoding refresh using encoder and normative restrictions”] hereafter “Gommelet”, in view of Coban; et al. [US 2021/0014529 Al]; hereafter “Coban”).
Claim 18. (Currently Amended); Gommelet discloses the invention substantially as claimed - An apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising instructions when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: (e.g. an addition to GDR/PIR technique, in accordance with the VVC codec, able to reduce codec delay; [page 1].)
Gommelet specifically teaches – obtain a coding unit of a coding tree unit of a picture (e.g. see VVC codec that by definition uses CTU/CU/PU block split; [page 1]); comprising a refreshed region and a non-refreshed region, (e.g. see refreshed and un-refresh regions in accordance with VVC/GDR, as shown in at least Fig. 1 [page 2]);
a virtual boundary between the refreshed region and the non- refreshed region; (e.g. see virtual boundary between regions, as shown in at least Fig. 2 [page 5])
examine whether the coding unit belongs to the refreshed region or to the non-refreshed region; (e.g. see Figs. (1-2) for region types are defined/examined; [page 5]);
treat the virtual boundary as a picture boundary when it is determined that the coding unit belongs to the refreshed region, or treat the virtual boundary as no boundary when it is determined that the coding unit belongs to the non-refreshed region; (e.g. see the 3 restriction cases proposed in the papers for “virtual boundary” treatment; [page 5]).
Given the teachings of Gommelet as a whole, under the obvious assumption and purpose of his papers, it is noted that some of the functional steps/components as listed (no encoder/decoder schematic disclosed), are missed or not fully described in the paper.
For the purpose of additional clarification and feature mapping, and in the same field of endeavor, Coban discloses a similar codec ecosystem (Fig. 1), comprising encoder (Fig. 3), decoder (Fig. 4), CPU (200) and memory (106, 120) components [Coban; 0041], in accordance with the VVC codec [Coban; 0042]; where CTU/CU/PU partitioning is analogously implemented, Figs (2); [Coban; 0012; 0072], able to perform intra-prediction technique, according to virtual boundaries treatment of a picture of video data, similarly employing GDR [Coban; 0068], as detailed illustrated in Figs. (8 and 9); [Coban; 0139; 0146]; wherein encoder/decoder may further process blocks on the dirty side of the picture (406), e.g., using any intra/inter prediction modes that are available (or non-available) to non-GDR pictures, as shown in Figs. (10 A/B); [Coban; 0142; 0150; 0154].)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the methodology of Gommelet with the codec architecture of Coban, in order to (e.g. reduce latency associated with tune in delay (i.e. awaiting an intra random access point (IRAP) picture), while also maintaining a relatively low bitrate for the bitstream - [Coban; 0071].)
Claim 19. (Previously Presented) Gommelet/Coban discloses - The apparatus according to claim 18, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: perform intra prediction for the coding unit of the picture, wherein when the coding unit belongs to the refreshed region of the picture, pixels of the non-refreshed region of the picture are considered as not available for the prediction. (The same rationale and motivation apply herein. In addition, see prediction unit (226) and flow chart of Figs. (8-9) for more details; [Coban; 0139; 0146].)
Claim 20. (Previously Presented) Gommelet/Coban discloses - The apparatus according to claim 19, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: obtain values for the pixels of the non-refreshed region of the picture for the prediction by performing at least one of the following: padding from one or more reconstructed pixels in the refreshed region; setting the values for the pixels of the non- refreshed region to a pre-determined value. (The same rationale and motivation apply herein. In addition, see prediction unit (226) and flow chart of Figs. (8-9) for more details; [Coban; 0139; 0146], and padding value samples step of the same [Coban; 0150]).
Claim 21. (Previously Presented) Gommelet/Coban discloses - The apparatus according to claim 19, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: consider coding information in non-refreshed regions of the picture as not available. (The same rationale and motivation apply herein. In addition, see Figs. (10 A/B); [Coban; 0142; 0150; 0154].)
Claim 22. (Previously Presented) Gommelet/Coban discloses - The apparatus according to claim 19, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: consider coding information in the non-refreshed region of the picture as not available, wherein the coding unit in the refreshed region appears in the same tile as coding units of the non-refreshed region. (The same rationale and motivation apply herein. See also tile treatment [Coban; 0150; 0154].)
Claim 23. (Previously Presented) Gommelet/Coban discloses - The apparatus according to claim 18, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: perform inter prediction for the coding unit of the picture, wherein when the coding unit belongs to the refreshed region of the picture, pixels of non-refreshed regions of reference pictures are considered as not available for the prediction. (The same rationale and motivation apply herein. In addition, see prediction unit (226) and flow chart of Figs. (8-9) for more details; [Coban; 0139; 0146].)
Claim 24. (Currently Amended) Gommelet/Coban discloses - The apparatus according to claim 23, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: obtain values for the pixels of the non-refreshed regions of the reference pictures for the prediction by at least one of the following: padding from one or more reconstructed pixels in refreshed regions of the reference pictures; and setting to a pre-determined value. (The same rationale and motivation apply herein. In addition, see prediction unit (226) and flow chart of Figs. (8-9) for more details; [Coban; 0139; 0146], and padding value samples step of the same [Coban; 0150]).
Claim 25. (Previously Presented) Gommelet/Coban discloses - The apparatus according to claim 23, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: consider coding information in the non-refreshed region of the reference pictures as not available or not inter mode. (The same rationale and motivation apply herein. In addition, see prediction steps of the same in Figs (3-4) and flow chart of Figs. (8-9) for more details; [Coban; 0139; 0146].)
Claim 26. (Previously Presented) Gommelet/Coban discloses - The apparatus according to claim 23, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: consider coding information in the non-refreshed regions of the picture as not available. (The same rationale and motivation apply herein. In addition, see prediction steps of the same in Figs (3-4) and flow chart of Figs. (8-9) for more details; [Coban; 0139; 0146].)
Claim 27. (Previously Presented) Gommelet/Coban discloses - The apparatus according to claim 23, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: perform motion vector prediction for the coding unit of the picture comprising maintaining at least one table including motion information of one or more past inter coded coding units, (e.g. see content table and syntax elements, implementation for MV data; [Coban; 0094; 0120]);
wherein the motion vector prediction comprises a history-based motion vector prediction or an intra block copy history-based motion vector prediction; and insert into the at least one table motion information of previously inter coded coding units of the refreshed region of the picture; (e.g. the table may include any of the prediction tools of the VVC via mode selection unit 202, such as MVP, affine mode, block copy, etc; [Coban; 0058, 0083, 0094; 0120]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 28. (Previously Presented) Gommelet/Coban discloses - The apparatus according to claim 27, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: insert into the at least one table motion information of previously inter coded coding units of the refreshed region of the picture, for coding units in the refreshed region of the picture; and insert motion information of previously inter coded coding units of the refreshed region and previously inter coded coding units of the non-refreshed region into the at least one table, for coding units in the non-refreshed region of the picture. (The same rationale and motivation apply herein. In addition, see content table and syntax elements, implemented for MV data; [Coban; 0058, 0083, 0094; 0120])
Claim 29. (Previously Presented) Gommelet/Coban discloses - The apparatus according to claim 18, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: perform in-loop filtering across the virtual boundary, wherein for pixels on the non- refreshed region ignoring the virtual boundary, and for pixels on the refreshed region considering coding information of the non-refreshed region as not available; (e.g. see in-loop filtering activation depending on “region type” in both [Gommelet; pages 3-4 and associated “level Tables”] and [Coban; 0128]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 30. (Previously Presented) Gommelet/Coban discloses - The apparatus according to claim 29, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: use by in-loop filtering pixel values padded or derived from the refreshed region or pre-set pixel values instead of coding information of the non-refreshed region for the pixels on the refreshed region; (e.g. see in-loop filtering activation depending on “region type” in both [Gommelet; pages 3-4 and associated “level Tables”] and [Coban; 0128]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 31. (Currently Amended) Gommelet/Coban discloses - The apparatus according to claim 18, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: start decoding from a gradual decoding reference picture; gradually recover pictures after the gradual decoding reference picture; and output the gradual decoding reference picture and recovering pictures. (The same rationale and motivation apply herein. In addition, see prediction unit (226) and flow chart of Figs. (8-9) for more details; [Coban; 0139; 0146].)
Claim 32. (Previously Presented) Gommelet/Coban discloses - The apparatus according to claim 18, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: enable all types of partitions within the coding tree unit; and construct the partitioning of the coding tree unit to coding units so that no coding unit spans both the refreshed region and the non-refreshed region; (e.g. see frame partitioning in accordance with VVC, where CTU/CU/PU is analogously implemented, as show in in Figs (2 A/B) [Coban; 0012; 0072] ; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 33. (Previously Presented) Gommelet/Coban discloses - A method comprising: obtaining a coding unit of a coding tree unit of a picture comprising a refreshed region and a non-refreshed region, and a virtual boundary between the refreshed region and the non-refreshed region; examining whether the coding unit belongs to the refreshed region or to the non- refreshed region; and treating the virtual boundary as a picture boundary when it is determined that the coding unit belongs to the refreshed region, or treating the virtual boundary as no boundary when it is determined that the coding unit belongs to the non-refreshed region. (Current lists all the same elements as recite in Claim 18 above, but in “Method form” instead, and is/are therefore on the same premise.)
Claim 34. (Previously Presented) Gommelet/Coban discloses - The method according to claim 33 further comprising: performing intra prediction for the coding unit of the picture, wherein when the coding unit belongs to the refreshed region of the picture, pixels of the non-refreshed region of the picture are considered as not available for prediction. (The same rationale and motivation apply herein, as given to Claim 19 above.)
Claim 35. (Currently Amended) Gommelet/Coban discloses - The method according to claim 34 further comprising: obtaining values for the pixels of the non-refreshed region of the picture for the prediction by at least one of the following: padding from one or more reconstructed pixels in the refreshed region; and setting to a pre-determined value. (The same rationale and motivation apply herein, as given to Claim 20 above.)
Claim 36. (Previously Presented) Gommelet/Coban discloses - The method according to claim 34 further comprising: considering coding information in non-refreshed regions of the picture as "not available". (The same rationale and motivation apply herein, as given to Claim 21 above.)
Claim 37. (Previously Presented) Gommelet/Coban discloses - The method according to claim 34 further comprising: considering coding information in the non-refreshed region of the picture as "not available", wherein the coding unit in the refreshed region appears in the same tile as coding units of the non-refreshed region. (The same rationale and motivation apply herein, as given to Claim 22 above.)
Prior Art Citations
8. The following List of prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is/are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
8.1. Patent documentation
US 12,160,591 B2 Wang; et al. H04N19/159; H04N19/70; H04N19/174;
US 12,413,755 B2 Wang; et al. H04N19/105; H04N19/1883; H04N19/159;
US 12,382,072 B2 Wang; et al. H04N19/44; H04N19/46; H04N19/105;
US 12,088,825 B2 Wei; et al. H04N19/167; H04N19/159; H04N19/174 ;
US 12,231,654 B2 Hong; et al. H04N19/52; H04N19/159; H04N19/105;
US 11,159,822 B2 Coban; et al. H04N19/105; H04N19/593; H04N19/174;
US 20210014529 A1 Coban; et al. H04N19/174; H04N19/11; H04N19/105;
US 20240163425 A1 Hendry; et al. H04N19/70; H04N19/46; H04N19/174;
US 20250234047 A1 Galpin; et al. H04N19/117; H04N19/33; H04N19/107;
8.2. Non-Patent Literature:
_ Gradual decoding refresh GDR using encoder and normative restrictions; Oct-2019.
_ Gradual Decoding Refresh for Versatile Video Coding; Wang; 2021.
_ Summary report on Gradual decoding refresh; Oct-2019.
CONCLUSIONS
9. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP 5 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.1 36(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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from Examiner should be directed to LUIS PEREZ-FUENTES (luis.perez-fuentes@uspto.gov) whose phone number is (571) 270 -1168. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-
5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, WILLIAM VAUGHN can be reached on (571) 272-1168. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned 571- 272- 3922. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LUIS PEREZ-FUENTES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481.