Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions
The amendments to the claims, filed on 11/25/2025, have been entered and made of record.
Claim 1 is canceled.
Claims 2-15 are pending. Note: claims 9-15 are double-rejected.
Response to Arguments
Arguments presented in the Remarks (“Remarks") filed on 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but are held unpersuasive. Examiner’s response to the presented arguments is below.
A. Regarding Double Patenting Rejection, the non-statutory double patenting rejection is withdrawn since a terminal disclaimer filed on 11/25/2025 is accepted.
B. Regarding the arguments [Remarks, p. 5-6 of 10] for claim 9 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 9 is directed to a bitstream stored in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium which merely serves as a support for data, no functional relationship exists. How the bitstream was generated and the content of the bitstream are both not given patentable weight as prescribed in both MPEP 2113 and 2111.05(III). Therefore, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by a reference which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream.
C. Regarding rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant argues that “Nowhere the cited Fig. 7 of [Remarks, p. 8 of 10] Wiegand describe or suggests that no macroblock within a slice group is in two entropy slices”. The argument is not persuasive because Fig. 6 of Wiegand shows “Subdivision of a pictures into three separate slices #0, #1, and #2” where each slice has a sequence of non-overlapped macroblocks. In video compression standards like H.264/AVC, a picture (frame) is divided into a grid of non-overlapping macroblocks (typically 16x16 pixels) where a slice is a group of non-overlapping macroblocks [Fig. 6 of Wiegand]. Slices are designed to be disjoint, meaning that each macroblock belongs to exactly one slice in subdivision of a picture into slices when using Flexible Macroblock Ordering (FMO) [Fig. 7 of Wiegand] or not using FMO [Fig. 6 of Wiegand].
Therefore, all claims 2-4 and 9-11 stand rejected. See the rejections below
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Wiegand (“Wiegand”) [NPL Titled “Overview of the H.264/AVC Video Coding Standard” provided in IDS filed on 01/17/2025]
Regarding claim 9 reciting “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream which is generated by an image encoding method, with an encoding apparatus”, there is no recitation of a processor or other element—merely data content (a bitstream which is generated by the recited method). Under MPEP 2111.05/(III), the claim is merely machine-readable media. The Examiner finds that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying n re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, claims 18-20 are subject to a prior art rejection based on any non- transitory computer readable medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application.
Wiegand discloses “Interactive or serial storage on optical and magnetic devices, DVD, etc.”; “which formats the VCL representation of the video and provides header information … for conveyance by a variety of transport layers or storage media (see Fig. 2)” [Section II. Applications and Design Feature Highlights]; and “File Formats, e.g., ISO MP4 for storage and MMS” [Section III. NAL]
to meet the claim limitations as follows:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream [Section II] which is generated by an image encoding method [Section II], with an encoding apparatus [Note: “an image encoding method” is considered as non-programing instructions and “an encoding apparatus” is a non-structured processor], the method comprising [No patentable weight]: partitioning a first frame in a video sequence into at least one reconstruction slice, thereby producing a first reconstruction slice associated with a first area of said first frame, wherein reconstruction of said first area does not require any reconstruction slice other than said first reconstruction slice; partitioning said first reconstruction slice into a plurality of entropy slices, wherein each entropy slice, in said plurality of entropy slices, comprises a plurality of macroblocks in said first reconstruction slice, wherein no macroblock in said first reconstruction slice is in two entropy slices in said plurality of entropy slices and wherein entropy coding of a first entropy slice, in said plurality of entropy slices, is independent of entropy coding of any other entropy slice, in said plurality of entropy slices; associating an entropy slice header with each of said plurality of entropy slices; and associating an entropy slice flag with a bitstream generated using said plurality of entropy slices.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-4 and 9-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wiegand (“Wiegand”) [NPL Titled “Overview of the H.264/AVC Video Coding Standard” provided in IDS filed on 01/17/2025] in view of ISO et al. (“ISO”) [NPL Titled “ISO/IEC 14496-10, Second edition, 2004-10-01” provided in IDS filed on 01/17/2025]
Regarding claim 2, Wiegand in view of ISO meets the claim limitations as follows:
A method for encoding a video frame in a video sequence, said method comprising:
partitioning a first frame (i.e. ‘a picture’) [Fig. 7] in a video sequence (i.e. ‘a coded video sequence’) [Section IV.VCL: A. Picture, Frames, and Fields: ‘a sequence of coded pictures’] into at least one reconstruction slice, thereby producing a first reconstruction slice (e.g. ‘Slice Group #0) [Fig. 7] associated with a first area of said first frame [Fig. 7: Slice Group #0],
wherein reconstruction of said first area does not require any reconstruction slice other than said first reconstruction slice [Section II. Applications and Design Feature Highlights: . Flexible macroblock ordering (FMO): ‘to partition the picture into regions called slice groups’; ‘with each slice becoming an independently-decodable subset of a slice group’];
partitioning said first reconstruction slice (e.g. ‘Slice Group #0) [Fig. 7] into a plurality of entropy slices (i.e. ‘each slice’ [Fig. 6 shows each slice #0, #1, #2 as subsets of a slice group]) [Section II. Applications and Design Feature Highlights: . Flexible macroblock ordering (FMO): ‘to partition the picture into regions called slice groups’; ‘with each slice becoming an independently-decodable subset of a slice group’; Section IV. VCL: D. Slices and Slice Groups: ‘Each slice group can be partitioned into one or more slices’],
wherein each entropy slice (i.e. ‘each slice’) [Section II. Applications and Design Feature Highlights: . Flexible macroblock ordering (FMO): ‘with each slice becoming an independently-decodable subset of a slice group’], in said plurality of entropy slices, comprises a plurality of macroblocks [Fig. 7: Section IV. VCL: D. Slices and Slice Groups: ‘such that a slice is a sequence of macroblocks’] in said first reconstruction slice (i.e. ‘each slice’) [Section II. Applications and Design Feature Highlights: . Flexible macroblock ordering (FMO): ‘to partition the picture into regions called slice groups’; ‘with each slice becoming an independently-decodable subset of a slice group’],
wherein no macroblock in said first reconstruction slice is in two entropy slices in said plurality of entropy slices [Fig. 7 shows separate macroblocks in Slice Group 0 (i.e. no macroblock in a reconstruction slice is in another slice); Section II; Section IV: ‘A slice in which all macroblocks of the slice are coded’; ‘the association of macroblocks to slice groups and slices is selected’] and
wherein entropy coding of a first entropy slice, in said plurality of entropy slices, is independent of entropy coding of any other entropy slice, in said plurality of entropy slices [Section II. Applications and Design Feature Highlights: . Flexible macroblock ordering (FMO): ‘with each slice becoming an independently-decodable subset of a slice group’];
associating an entropy slice header [Fig. 7; Section II; Section IV: ‘slice headers’] with each of said plurality of entropy slices; and
associating an entropy slice flag with a bitstream generated using said plurality of entropy slices [Section II; Section IV: ‘slice headers’; ‘slice types’, e.g. I slice, P slice, B slice or ‘the other slice types’].
Wiegand does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
associating an entropy slice flag with a bitstream generated using said plurality of entropy slices.
However in the same field of endeavor ISO discloses the deficient claim as follows:
associating an entropy slice flag (i.e. ‘slice_type’ according to ISO’s disclosure) [ISO: Table 7-3: list of various slice_type values; Sect 7.3.3 Slice header syntax discloses various slice_type values. The common data are (as an example) "slice_qp_delta", For slice_type==B, the slice header has extra data field: “direct_spatial_mv_pred_flag". So slice_header size is different for each slice_type (i.e. either smaller or larger than another type of slice_header) ] with a bitstream generated using said plurality of entropy slices.
Wiegand and ISO are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the same time of invention to combine teachings of Wiegand and ISO as motivation to follow ISO standard for the flag “slice_type” (to indicate different header size) because ISO standard is used for worldwide standardization.
Regarding claim 3, Wiegand in view of ISO meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 2.
Wiegand does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The method of claim 2, wherein associating an entropy slice header with each of said plurality of entropy slices comprises associating a first header with the first entropy slice of said plurality of entropy slices and associating a second header with at least one other entropy slice of said plurality of entropy slices.
However in the same field of endeavor ISO discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein associating an entropy slice header [Sections 7.3.2; 7.3.3; 7.4.3: Slice header semantics: disclosing ‘slice_header()’; ‘slice_id’; ‘slice_data’; ‘slice_type’; ‘frame_num’] with each of said plurality of entropy slices comprises associating a first header with the first entropy slice of said plurality of entropy slices and associating a second header with at least one other entropy slice of said plurality of entropy slices.
Wiegand and ISO are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the same time of invention to combine teachings of Wiegand and ISO as motivation to follow ISO standard for the flag “slice_type” (to indicate different header size) because ISO standard is used for worldwide standardization.
Regarding claim 4, Wiegand in view of ISO meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 3.
Wiegand does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The method of claim 3, wherein the second header is different than the first header and shares most of attributes with the first header.
However in the same field of endeavor ISO discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the second header (i.e. ‘slice_type’, e.g. slice_type == B) [Sect. 7.3.3: Table 7-3: list of various slice_type values. For slice_type == B, the slice header has extra data field: ‘direct_spatial_mv_pred_flag’] is different than the first header and shares most of attributes with the first header.
Wiegand and ISO are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the same time of invention to combine teachings of Wiegand and ISO as motivation to follow ISO standard for the flag “slice_type” (to indicate different header size) because ISO standard is used for worldwide standardization.
Regarding claim 9, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 2 in the form of ‘A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream’ [Wiegand: Section II. Applications and Design Feature Highlights: “Interactive or serial storage on optical and magnetic devices, DVD, etc.”; “which formats the VCL representation of the video and provides header information … for conveyance by a variety of transport layers or storage media (see Fig. 2)”; Section III. NAL: “File Formats, e.g., ISO MP4 for storage and MMS”] and rejected as per discussion for claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 3 in the form of ‘A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream’ and rejected as per discussion for claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 4 in the form of ‘A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream’ and rejected as per discussion for claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding claim 5, it is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6, it is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 7, it is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8, it is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 12, it is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 13, it is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 14, it is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 15, it is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening 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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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 PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 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 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.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488