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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 11/26/2025 has been entered. Claim 3 has been added. No claims have been cancelled. Claims 1 and 2 have been amended. Claims 1-3 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the 112(f) interpretation have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(f) interpretation has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the 102 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found references in response to the amendments.
Examiner concurs the previously presented prior art alone fails to disclose or suggest the amended claim language. However, during an updated search the previously cited reference H.266 V3, which discloses both decoded picture hash SEI message syntax and syntax elements related to width/height of a target and uncropped picture. Applicant’s specification states value 132 means decoded picture hash [0113] and an uncropped picture having a same size of a pps picture [0106]. H.266 V3 discloses both that an SEI message does not include decoded picture hash and an uncropped picture having a same size as syntax elements indicating a width and height of a target picture as required by the amended claim language. Therefore, the claims are now rejected under 35 USC 103 over the combination of previously presented Chen and H.266 V3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3 recites the limitation "is input to the decoded picture hash supplemental enhancement information message". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previous limitation states a decoded picture hash supplemental information message is not applied, therefore it is unclear how the decoded picture hash supplemental enhancement information message exists in the subsequent limitation.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. US 2025/0008171 A1, hereafter Chen, in view of ITU-T Telecommunication Standardization Sector of ITU, H.266 V3 “Versatile video coding”, hereafter H.266 V3.
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a video decoding apparatus (video streaming client 1100) [FIG. 11] comprising:
an image decoding circuit (video streaming client 1100) [FIG. 11] configured to decode coded data and generate a decoded image (receives a bitstream 1095 and decodes the content of the bitstream into pixel data of video frames for display) [0134];
a supplemental enhancement processing circuit (video streaming client 1100) [FIG. 11] configured to perform supplemental enhancement processing on the decoded image (the NN post filters 1110 applies post filtering to decoded video content received from the video decoder 1000…NN post filters are configured by NN configuration data provided by SEI parser 1120, which parses the SEI messages from the video streaming server) [0144]; and
a supplemental enhancement information decoding circuit (video streaming client 1100) [FIG. 11] configured to decode multiple pieces of supplemental enhancement information for causing the supplemental enhancement processing circuit to operate (SEI parser 1120 receives SEI messages as non-VCL NAL units de-multiplexed from the bitstream 1095…including SPO messages) [0145], wherein
the multiple pieces of supplemental enhancement information include a supplemental enhancement information processing order message indicating priority processing order of the multiple pieces of supplemental enhancement information (SPO SEI messages for setting the processing orders of SEI messages in SEI processing order groups (SPOGs)) [0145].
However, Chen fails to explicitly disclose the coded data includes a first syntax element indicating a width of a target picture and a second syntax element indicating a height of the target picture, a decoded picture hash supplemental enhancement information message is not applied in the supplemental enhancement information processing order message, and an uncropped picture having the same size as the first syntax element and the second syntax element is input to the decoded picture hash supplemental enhancement information message.
H.266 V3, in an analogous environment, discloses the coded data includes a first syntax element indicating a width of a target picture and a second syntax element indicating a height of the target picture (pps_pic_width_in_luma_sample and pps_pic_height_in_luma_samples) [section D.12.3],
a decoded picture hash supplemental enhancement information message is not applied in the supplemental enhancement information processing order message (an SEI message that has a payloadType not equal to 132 (decoded picture hash)) [section D.6.2]; and
an uncropped picture having the same size as the first syntax element and the second syntax element is input to the decoded picture hash supplemental enhancement information message (for purposes of interpretation of the decoded picture hash SEI message, the following variables are specified: - PicWidthinLumaSamples and PicHeightInLumaSamples are set equal to pps_pic_width_in_luma_sample and pps_pic_height_in_luma_samples, respectively) [section D.12.3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify variables for an SEI message, as disclosed by H.266 V3, with the invention disclosed by Chen, the motivation being assisting in the process relating to decoding or displaying [section D.1].
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses a video coding apparatus (video streaming server 800) [FIG. 8] comprising:
an image coding circuit (video streaming server 800) [FIG. 8] configured to code a video signal and generate coded data (video encoder 700 receives input video signal from a video source 705 and encodes the signal into bitstream) [0114];
a supplemental enhancement information generating circuit (video streaming server 800) [FIG. 8] configured to generate multiple pieces of supplemental enhancement information (the SEI generator 820 generates SEI messages as non-VCL NAL units to be injected into the bitstream 795) [0127]; and
a supplemental enhancement information coding circuit (video streaming server 800) [FIG. 8] configured to code the multiple pieces of supplemental enhancement information (the NAL multiplexer 830 multiplexes…non-VCL NAL units generate by the SEI generator 820 to produce the bitstream 795) [0125],
wherein the multiple pieces of supplemental enhancement information include a piece of supplemental enhancement information processing order message indicating priority processing order of the multiple pieces of supplemental enhancement information (the SEI generator generates various SEI messages, including SPO SEI messages for setting processing orders of SEI message in SEI processing order groups (SPOGs) [0127].
However, Chen fails to explicitly disclose the coded data includes a first syntax element indicating a width of a target picture and a second syntax element indicating a height of the target picture, a decoded picture hash supplemental enhancement information message is not applied in the supplemental enhancement information processing order message, and an uncropped picture having the same size as the first syntax element and the second syntax element is input to the decoded picture hash supplemental enhancement information message.
H.266 V3, in an analogous environment, discloses the coded data includes a first syntax element indicating a width of a target picture and a second syntax element indicating a height of the target picture (pps_pic_width_in_luma_sample and pps_pic_height_in_luma_samples) [section D.12.3],
a decoded picture hash supplemental enhancement information message is not applied in the supplemental enhancement information processing order message (an SEI message that has a payloadType not equal to 132 (decoded picture hash)) [section D.6.2]; and
an uncropped picture having the same size as the first syntax element and the second syntax element is input to the decoded picture hash supplemental enhancement information message (for purposes of interpretation of the decoded picture hash SEI message, the following variables are specified: - PicWidthinLumaSamples and PicHeightInLumaSamples are set equal to pps_pic_width_in_luma_sample and pps_pic_height_in_luma_samples, respectively) [section D.12.3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify variables for an SEI message, as disclosed by H.266 V3, with the invention disclosed by Chen, the motivation being assisting in the process relating to decoding or displaying [section D.1].
Regarding claim 3, computer readable medium claim 3 is drawn to the instructions corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claim 2. Therefore, computer readable medium claim 3 corresponds to method claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons of unpatentability as used above.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Xu et al. US 2023/0246834 A1 discloses decoded picture hash SEI message syntax
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 STEFAN GADOMSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 12-8PM EST.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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.
STEFAN GADOMSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2485
/STEFAN GADOMSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights