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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deshpande (2017/0134742) for the same reasons as set forth in Sec. 4 of the parent application 17/087,865, dated 3/18/22.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Deshpande discloses a computer system (and the corresponding method; and non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a computer program for coding) for coding video data (para [0159]-[0165], [0178], [0179], [0285], [0286], [0395], [0431]), the computer system comprising one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media configured to store computer program code (para [0159]-[0165], [0178], [0179], [0285], [0286], [0395], [0431]); and one or more computer processors configured to access said computer program code and operate as instructed by said computer program code, said computer program code including receiving code configured to cause the one or more computer processors obtaining video data comprising a current picture and one or more other pictures (para [0159]-[0165], [0178], [0179], [0285], [0286], [0395], [0431]); determining a first flag indicating whether the current picture is referenced by the one or more other pictures in an encoding/decoding order (para [0159]-[0165], [0178], [0179], [0285], [0286], [0395], [0431]); determining a second flag indicating to whether the current picture is output (para [0322], [0395], [0603]); and decoding/encoding the video data in accordance with the first flag and the second flag (para [0007], [0397]), a value of the second flag is inferred (e.g. 0) based on a value of the first flag ([0606], [0614], [0655], e.g. alt_output_layer_flag), wherein the first flag and the second flag are signaled in a picture header or a slice header associated with the video data (para [0395], [0604]), and wherein a value of the second flag is inferred based on the value of the first flag not being explicitly signaled (para [0395], [0397], [0411], [0437], [0440]).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Deshpande discloses the current picture is not encoded based on the first flag being set to one (para [0397], [0567]) and the second flag being set to zero (para [0397], [0567]).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Deshpande discloses the first flag corresponds to whether the current picture is referenced for motion compensation or parameter prediction (para [0395], [0397], [0437]).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Deshpande discloses the second flag corresponds to whether the current picture cropped and output for display or other purposes (para [0431], [0434]).
Regarding claims 7, and 14, Deshpande discloses the value of the second flag is inferred at the encoder side or at the decoder side (para [0103], [0368]).
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,095,958 and claims 1-3 of Patent 11,722,656 for the same reasons as set forth in Sec. 6 of the last OA, dated 11/26/25. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the application are broader than the ones in the patent (214 U.S.P.Q. 761 In re Van Ornum and Stanz).
18/808,959
US 12,095,958
A method for encoding video data, executable by at least one processor, comprising obtaining video data comprising
a current picture and one or more other pictures;
determining a first flag, the first flag indicating whether the current picture is referenced by the one or more other pictures in a decoding an order;
determining a second flag, indicating whether the current picture is
and decoding the video data in accordance with the first flag and flag, a value of the second flag is inferred based on a value of the first flag.
A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a computer program for coding video data, the computer program configured to cause one or more computer processors to:
receive coded video data comprising a current picture and one or more other pictures;
checking a first flag corresponding to whether the current picture is referenced by the one or more other pictures in a decoding order;
checking a second flag corresponding to whether the current picture is output
;
decode the video data based on values corresponding to the first flag and the second flag.
18/808,959
US 11,722,656
A method for encoding video data, executable by at least one processor, comprising obtaining video data comprising
a current picture and one or more other pictures;
determining a first flag, the first flag indicating whether the current picture is referenced by the one or more other pictures in a decoding an order;
determining a second flag, indicating whether the current picture is
and decoding the video data in accordance with the first flag and flag,
a value of the second flag is inferred based on a value of the first flag.
A method for decoding video data, executable by a processor, comprising:
receiving coded video data including a coded current picture and one or more subsequent pictures;
checking a first flag for indicating whether the coded current picture is referenced for compensation or parameter prediction by the one or more subsequent pictures in a decoding order;
checking a second flag for indicating whether the coded current picture can be cropped and outputted for display or other purposes, the second flag being different from the first flag; and
decoding the coded video data at least in part by discarding the coded current picture from the coded video data based on the first flag indicating a lack of use of the coded current picture as a reference picture and the second flag indicating a restriction preventing output of the coded current picture,
wherein the first flag and the second flag are signaled in one of a picture header and a slice header associated with the video data, and
wherein a value of the second flag is inferred during decoding based on a value of the first flag.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/7/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts on p. 7-8 of the Remarks that the reference fails to disclose the second flag is inferred. However, it is submitted that [0606], [0614], and [0655] of Deshpande disclose that the alt_output_layer_flag indicates whether a picture in the layer is output and is inferred to be 0 based on the inter layer prediction flag that enables picture prediction and reference between layers, wherein the value of the inter layer prediction flag is not being explicitly signaled (e.g. [0397], [0411], [0440]).
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 YOUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7334. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11 - 7.
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.
/Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485