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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2013-058679 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 9/25/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 received 5/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
Applicant contends that the cited prior art fails to disclose newly amended limitations of independent claims 1 and 8, including: “receive information indicating whether or not to control a tile in which encoding-related information is referred to; receive, associated with the encoded data and in response to the received information indicating that the tile is to be controlled, control information designating, for the tile of the enhancement layer, a permitted reference area in the base layer thereby allowing reference to the encoding-related information for the permitted reference area as a reference target for decoding of the encoded data of the tile of the enhancement layer to be permitted”.
Applicant contends:
“Rapaka addresses tile boundary alignment between enhancement and reference layers in scalable HEVC extensions, disclosing flags such as tile_boundaries_aligned_flag and inter_layerpred_not_along_tile_boundary_flag. See paragraphs [0090]-[0092] and [0101] of Rapaka. However, such flags of Rapaka indicate globally whether tile boundaries of different layers are aligned and do not disclose control information that identifies, as a permitted reference area, a specific set of tiles of the base layer for a particular tile of the enhancement layer.Furthermore, Rapaka’s disclosure at paragraphs [0090]-[0092] and [0189]-[0191] shows that the flag inter_layerpred_not_along_tile_boundary_flag governs inter-layer texture prediction and inter-layer syntax prediction jointly and globally by its own value; it does not disclose a decoding device that receives control information designating a permitted reference area in response to a separately received, tile-specific "whether or not to control" indication.” (Remarks of 8/11/2026; pages 11-12)
While Applicant’s points are understood, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The relevant language of claim 1 recites: “receive information indicating whether or not to control a tile in which encoding-related information is referred to”
See Rapaka, ¶ 0087-0089, 0090-0093 discloses “control information” or variable/flag named “inter_layerpred_not_along_tile_boundary_flag”, which when equal to 1 indicates that tile boundaries of different layers are aligned and inter-layer texture prediction and inter-layer syntax prediction are not allowed along/across tile boundaries such that any enhancement layer tile can be decoded without decoding any non-aligned base layer tile. In this case, inter-prediction is disallowed and thus tile division information transmission of the enhancement layer is restricted.
Rapaka’s ¶ 0101-0103 disclose that a tile boundary alignment may be signaled in correspondence with geometrical parameters differing with respect to tile configuration between a corresponding enhancement layer and the given reference (base) layer. Particularly, it is noted that geometrical parameters include reference layer left/top/right/bottom offsets for signaling tile boundary offsets with respect to a determined “permitted” (non-restricted) area;
Further, Rapaka’s Fig. 11 illustrates defining/designating a permitted reference area (140A, 140B) of a base layer (136) corresponding to enhancement layer regions 132A, 132B.
See the rejection below for how the cited art in light of new/existing references reads on the newly amended language as well as the examiner’s interpretation of the cited art in view of the presented claim set.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Ugur et al. (US 20140003504 A1) in view of Rapaka et al. (US 20140254669 A1) (hereinafter Rapaka).
Regarding claim 1, Ugur discloses:
An image decoding device comprising: [See Ugur, ¶ 0094 discloses coding/decoding of audio and/or video.]
circuitry configured to: [See Ugur, ¶ 0094 discloses codec circuitry]
receive, from an encoder, encoded data of a tile of an enhancement layer of image data, the image data including a base layer and at least one enhancement layer, [See Ugur, Fig. 5 illustrates a currently layer (enhancement layer) of a plurality of layers (consisting of base and enhancement layers) and a certain area (502); See Ugur, ¶ 0202, 0207 discloses encoding one or more enhancement layer sub-pictures for a given base-layer picture.] wherein each of the base layer and the at least one enhancement layer comprises one or more tiles, [See Ugur, ¶ 0123, 0128 0171 discloses that a picture can be partitioned into tiles.] and wherein for each of the base layer and the at least one enhancement layer a picture of the image data is divided into the tiles which are independently decodable; [See Ugur, ¶ 0128 discloses video coding standards allowing encoders to divide a coded picture to independently decodable pieces – particularly, coded slices or alike. Thus, the routine and conventional partitioning of a picture into independently decodable slices or tiles is within the level of ordinary skill.]
wherein encoding-related information of areas other than the permitted reference area is excluded from the reference target for decoding of the encoded data of the tile of the enhancement layer, [See Ugur, ¶ 0161-0164 discloses defining an “isolated region” in a picture as a means of constraining in-picture and inter prediction jointly. An isolated region in a picture can contain any macroblock (or alike) locations, and a picture can contain zero or more isolated regions that do not overlap. A leftover region, if any, is the area of the picture that is not covered by any isolated region of a picture. When coding an isolated region, at least some types of in-picture prediction is disabled across its boundaries. A leftover region may be predicted from isolated regions of the same picture. Particularly, an isolated region can be inter-predicted from the corresponding isolated region in other pictures within the same isolated-region picture group, whereas inter prediction from other isolated regions or outside the isolated-region picture group may be disallowed; See Ugur, ¶ 0230 discloses In some embodiments, the base layer may also contain a sub-picture such as an isolated region, which is co-located with the enhancement layer sub-picture. In some embodiments, the sub-picture of the enhancement layer may use prediction from the base layer in encoding and/or decoding, but the prediction is limited to use samples only within the sub-picture of the base layer.]
wherein the permitted reference area identifies a set of tiles of the base layer; and [See Ugur, ¶ 0171, 0239 discloses the enhancement layer sub-picture concept being implemented in the form of Supplemental Enhancement Information (SEI) messages. A tile set SEI message may be signaled to indicate a set of tile indexes or addresses so as to form an isolated-region picture group, or “area” (such as element 702 in Fig. 7), which is a region of a tile set of a base layer.]
decode the encoded data with reference to the permitted reference area according to control of the control information. [See Ugur, ¶ 0124-0128, 0230 discloses decoding according to a defined restricted co-located area.]
Ugur does not appear to explicitly disclose:
receive information indicating whether or not to control a tile in which encoding-related information is referred to;
receive, associated with the encoded data and in response to the received information indicating that the tile is to be controlled, control information designating, for the tile of the enhancement layer, a permitted reference area in the base layer, thereby allowing reference to the encoding-related information for the permitted reference area as a reference target for decoding of the encoded data of the tile of the enhancement layer to be permitted,
However, Rapaka discloses:
receive information indicating whether or not to control a tile in which encoding-related information is referred to; [See Rapaka, ¶ 0087-0089, 0090-0093 discloses “control information” or variable/flag named “inter_layerpred_not_along_tile_boundary_flag”, which when equal to 1 indicates that tile boundaries of different layers are aligned and inter-layer texture prediction and inter-layer syntax prediction are not allowed along/across tile boundaries such that any enhancement layer tile can be decoded without decoding any non-aligned base layer tile. In this case, inter-prediction is disallowed and thus tile division information transmission of the enhancement layer is restricted.]
receive, associated with the encoded data and in response to the received information indicating that the tile is to be controlled, [See Rapaka, ¶ 0087-0089, 0090-0093, 0143 discloses encoding a syntax element for an enhancement layer tile indicating a number of reference layer tiles to be encoded before the enhancement layer tile can be encoded, and then after encoding that number of reference layer tiles, encoding the enhancement layer. Further, that video encoder 20 may encode a syntax element indicating whether tile boundaries for an enhancement layer are aligned with tile boundaries of a reference layer picture, and encode the enhancement layer picture based on the syntax element] control information designating, for the tile of the enhancement layer, a permitted reference area in the base layer, thereby allowing reference to the encoding-related information for the permitted reference area as a reference target for decoding of the encoded data of the tile of the enhancement layer to be permitted, [See Rapaka, Figs. 10-11 illustrates defining/designating a permitted reference area (140A, 140B) of a base layer (136) corresponding to enhancement layer regions 132A, 132B. See Rapaka, ¶ 0101-0103, 0183-0187 discloses that a tile boundary alignment may be signaled in correspondence with geometrical parameters differing with respect to tile configuration between a corresponding enhancement layer and the given reference (base) layer. Particularly, it is noted that geometrical parameters include reference layer left/top/right/bottom offsets for signaling tile boundary offsets with respect to a determined “permitted” (non-restricted) area; See Rapaka, Fig. 11 illustrates a “permitted” reference area (140A, 140B) in a base layer.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Ugur to add the teachings of Rapaka in order to signal restrictions of tile boundaries related to geometrical parameters.
Regarding claim 2, Ugur in view of Rapaka discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Ugur discloses:
wherein the control information designates the set of tiles using an identification number allocated in a raster scan order, [See Ugur, ¶ 0239 discloses tile indexes or addresses defining an enhancement layer sub-picture area in which only samples within the co-located area are allowed to be used; See Ugur, ¶ 0171 discloses that sub-pictures may be scanned in sub-picture raster scan order.] information indicating positions of the tile in vertical and horizontal directions in a picture, or information indicating a data position of the tile in the encoded data.
Regarding claim 4, Ugur in view of Rapaka discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Ugur discloses:
wherein the encoding-related information includes information used for generation of a prediction image used in decoding of the encoded data. [See Ugur, ¶ 0239 discloses that a tile set SEI message may indicate to avoid inter-layer prediction from areas outside a sub-picture area on a base layer or other layer used for inter-layer prediction.]
Regarding claim 5, Ugur in view of Rapaka discloses all the limitations of claim 4.
Rapaka discloses:
wherein the information used for the generation of the prediction image includes information used for texture prediction of the image data and information used for syntax prediction of the image data, and [See Rapaka, ¶ 0189-0191 discloses performing inter-layer texture prediction and inter-layer syntax prediction.]
wherein the control information includes information used to independently control a tile in which the information used for the texture prediction is referred to and a tile in which the information used for the syntax prediction is referred to. [See Rapaka, ¶ 0189-0191 discloses indicating whether inter-layer texture prediction and/or inter-layer syntax prediction are not allowed along or across tile boundaries.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Ugur to add the teachings of Rapaka in order to signal restrictions of tile boundaries related to geometrical parameters.
Regarding claim 6, Ugur in view of Rapaka discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Ugur discloses:
wherein the circuitry is further configured to:
receive the encoded data encoded for each of the tiles obtained by dividing the picture of the enhancement layer of the image data and the control information of each of the tiles; [See Ugur, ¶ 0128 discloses division of a picture into coded slices or tiles; See Ugur, ¶ 0200 discloses that a sub-picture region may correspond with a particular selected region; See Ugur, ¶ 0171, 0230, 0239 discloses tile indexes or addresses defining an enhancement layer sub-picture area in which only samples within the co-located area are allowed to be used.]
and decode the encoded data with reference to the encoding-related information of some tiles of the base layer for each of the tiles according to control of the control information of each tile. [See Ugur, ¶ 0239 discloses areas inside or outside a sub-picture area may be pre- processed prior to encoding according to picture properties (encoding-related information).]
Regarding claim 7, Ugur in view of Rapaka discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Ugur discloses:
wherein the circuitry is further configured to receive information indicating whether it is possible to detect a tile division of the enhancement layer with reference to a tile division of the base layer. [See Ugur, ¶ 0128 discloses division of a picture into coded slices or tiles; See Ugur, ¶ 0200 discloses that a sub-picture region may correspond with a particular selected region; See Ugur, ¶ 0171, 0230, 0239 discloses tile indexes or addresses defining an enhancement layer sub-picture area in which only samples within the co-located area are allowed to be used.]
Regarding claim 8, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 in the form of “a method” rather than “a device”, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
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 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 PATRICK E DEMOSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-8799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-4 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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 5712727384. 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.
/PATRICK E DEMOSKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
