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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
LEE discloses that the threshold is defined for each layer, including the second layer/enhancement layer ([0097] the maximum temporal sub-layer information means information on a maximum temporal sub-layer level allowing inter-layer prediction at a corresponding layer. That is, a temporal sub-layer having a temporal level greater than that of the maximum temporal sub-layer information described in a corresponding layer).
RAPAKA discloses based on a determining, discarding a temporal sublayer of a first layer that is not used for inter-layer prediction of a temporal sublayer of a second layer ([0028] signaling sub-layer inter-layer prediction dependency separately for all direct dependent layers; [0107] discard (e.g., remove from a buffer) the pictures in the first layer with respect to the second layer, discard the pictures in the first layer that are disabled for use for inter-layer prediction with respect to the second layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of LEE according to the invention of RAPAKA, to discard the temporal sublayer of the first layer based on the determining that the temporal sublayer of the second layer is coded without inter-layer prediction, in order to save memory (RAPAKA [0024]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. US 12069236 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al. (US 20160119632 A1) in view of RAPAKA et al. (US 20150103905 A1).
Regarding claim 1. LEE discloses A decoder for decoding a sequence of pictures from a data stream having a plurality of layers ([0001] code and decode an upper layer using information of a lower layer as image encoding and decoding technology of a multi-layered structure; abstract, an image having a plurality of layers including at least one temporal sub-layer), the decoder configured to perform operations comprising:
decoding, from the data stream, a temporal identifier that indicates a temporal sublayer threshold above which temporal sublayers of a second layer are coded without inter-layer prediction ([0086] efficiently express and signal information on whether a temporal sub-layer of each layer may be referred for inter-layer prediction; [0092] signal temporal sub-layer information of each layer determined using a syntax element; [0090] determine a temporal sub-layer allowing inter-layer prediction at each layer except for the uppermost layer and may signal the information by a decoder. Further, the decoding device may recognize whether a temporal sub-layer of each layer may be referred for inter-layer prediction at an upper layer through the signaled information. The inter-layer prediction may be performed based on the temporal sub-layer information of each layer which may be referred);
determining that a temporal sublayer of the second layer has a value that is above the temporal sublayer threshold ([0097] the maximum temporal sub-layer information means information on a maximum temporal sub-layer level allowing inter-layer prediction at a corresponding layer. That is, a temporal sub-layer having a temporal level greater than that of the maximum temporal sub-layer information described in a corresponding layer); and
decoding, by inter-layer prediction, another temporal sublayer of the second layer that has a value at or below the temporal sublayer threshold ([0097] the maximum temporal sub-layer information means information on a maximum temporal sub-layer level allowing inter-layer prediction at a corresponding layer. That is, a temporal sub-layer having a temporal level greater than that of the maximum temporal sub-layer information described in a corresponding layer).
Furthermore, LEE discloses ([0092]) The decoding device may decode the signaled temporal sub-layer information of each layer from the coding device, may determine whether temporal sub-layer pictures included in each layer may be used as a reference picture for the inter-layer prediction based on the decoded information.
However, LEE does not explicitly disclose based on the determining, discarding a temporal sublayer of a first layer that is not used for inter-layer prediction of the temporal sublayer of the second layer.
RAPAKA discloses based on a determining, discarding a temporal sublayer of a first layer that is not used for inter-layer prediction of a temporal sublayer of a second layer ([0107] discard (e.g., remove from a buffer) the pictures in the first layer with respect to the second layer, discard the pictures in the first layer that are disabled for use for inter-layer prediction with respect to the second layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of LEE according to the invention of RAPAKA, to discard the temporal sublayer of the first layer based on the determining that the temporal sublayer of the second layer is coded without inter-layer prediction, in order to save memory (RAPAKA [0024]).
Regarding claim 2. LEE in view of RAPAKA discloses The decoder of claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises a base layer (LEE [0076] The scalable video coding structure may include decoding information of the base layer; RAPAKA [0074] The lowest illustrated layer (410A) may be referred to as a base layer, a current layer, and/or a first layer).
Regarding claim 3. LEE in view of RAPAKA discloses The decoder of claim 1, wherein the second layer comprises an enhancement layer (LEE [0076] The scalable video coding structure may include decoding information of an enhancement layer; RAPAKA [0074] The layers above the first layer 410A (415A1 and 415A2) may be considered enhancement layers of the first layer 410A).
Regarding claim 4. LEE discloses The decoder of claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises a lower layer than the second layer ([0077] The base layer may refer to a lower layer. The enhancement layer may refer to a upper layer).
Regarding claim 5. RAPAKA discloses The decoder of claim 1, further comprising:
prior to decoding the temporal identifier from the data stream, decoding a flag that indicates a presence of the temporal identifier in the data stream ([0023] the video encoder may signal the max_tid_ref_present_flag to indicate that max_tid_il_ref_pics_plus1[i] is present. If it is, then the video encoder may signal max_tid_il_ref_pics_plus1[i]).
Regarding claim 6. The same analysis has been stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7. The same analysis has been stated in claim 2.
Regarding claim 8. The same analysis has been stated in claim 3.
Regarding claim 9. The same analysis has been stated in claim 4.
Regarding claim 10. The same analysis has been stated in claim 5.
Regarding claim 11. The same analysis has been stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12. The same analysis has been stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13. The same analysis has been stated in claim 2.
Regarding claim 14. The same analysis has been stated in claim 3.
Regarding claim 15. The same analysis has been stated in claim 4.
Regarding claim 16. The same analysis has been stated in claim 5.
Regarding claim 17. The same analysis has been stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 18. The same analysis has been stated in claim 2.
Regarding claim 19. The same analysis has been stated in claim 3.
Regarding claim 20. The same analysis has been stated in claim 4.
Regarding claim 21. The same analysis has been stated in claim 5.
Regarding claim 22. The same analysis has been stated in claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOLAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-7580. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. to Fri. 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, SATH V. PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at (571) 272-7455. 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.
/XIAOLAN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488