DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to amendments filed on 20 APRIL 2026.
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
Claims 9 and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-8 have been canceled. Claims 21-28 have been added. Claims 9-28 are pending and herein examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 APRIL 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to claim 9, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2014/0294067 A1 (hereinafter “Li”) in view of Drugeon et al., “AHG15: Partial APS update” JCTVC-H0381 (hereinafter “Drugeon”), Applicant alleges:
“The first bullet above uses a single flag “present” flag for the quantization matrices tool. When this flag has a value of 1, then Drugeon cannot fairly be considered to go look for a third parameter set because “quantization matrices are explicitly signaled.” If the present flag has a value 0, then the parameters are copied from another APS. In both cases of value of this flag, there is no need to the decoder to perform “deciding, from the another tool flag, that another tool parameter… is present or enabled” because for both values of the present flag, quantization matrices tool is always enabled (either by explicit signaling or by copying).” (Remarks, p. 2.)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the claim does not require the “present” flag to have a value of 1 for obtaining a third parameter set identifier. The claim merely requires “based on the deciding” and Drugeon obtains from a different parameter set (i.e., third parameter set) based on the value of the “present” flag, in accordance with the first bullet. Additionally, the disclosure of Li is relied upon for disclosing a first tool corresponding to the “tool flag” and a second tool corresponding to the “another tool flag.” See Li, ¶ [0461]. The first and second tools being the Sample Adaptive Offset (SAO) filter and Adaptive Loop Filter (ALF). Applicant’s argument of the first bullet is directed to a quantization matrices tool. The quantization matrices tool is not relied upon in the rejection of the independent claims and the argument is therefore moot.
“For the second bullet above, two flag are signaled – one of the “present” flag and the other is the “copy” flag. Thus, the same flag (“the another tool flag”) is not used for deciding that the another tool parameter is present or enabled (allegedly done by the present flag) and “obtained, based on the deciding, a third parameter set identifier (which allegedly is done by the copy flag).” (Remarks, p. 3.)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the copy flag is dependent on the present flag. First, Drugeon states in the second bullet, “[i]f the “present” flag is equal to 0, the tools are not used.” In other words, Drugeon’s “present” flag functions as the “tool flag” for deciding whether a tool parameter is present or enabled. Applicant’s position appears to suggest a single “present” flag is signaled for both tools; however, Drugeon’s second bullet is describing flags that are sent for each of the SAO and ALF tools. Drugeon, p. 4, aps_rbsp() includes both an APS SAO present flag and APS ALF present flag, where one is the “tool flag” and the other is the “another tool flag.” Therefore, the other “present” flag is understood to be the “another tool flag” for deciding whether a tool parameter is present or enabled, teaching the claim limitation.
“Second, Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner has split the claimed invention into two different pieces without paying attention to the operation of claim 9 as a whole where a tool flag and another tool flag are obtained from the first parameter set and the another tool parameter is obtained from a third parameter set. Here, the splitting of claim 9 and mapping to two different prior art teachings simply appears to use the roadmap of the presently claimed invention.” (Remarks, p. 3.)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The active aps_rbsp disclosed by Drugeon represents the first parameter set and includes the “tool flag” and the “another tool flag,” as outlined above. See Drugeon, p. 4, aps_rbsp(). Whether the another tool flag is obtained from a third parameter set is dependent on the “copy” flag, and as explained above, the copy flag is only present dependent on the “present” flag. For this reason, the first parameter set includes the “present” flags for both tools and whether the tools are obtained from either the first parameter set, the second parameter set, or the third parameter, is possible based on copying the tools from the respective parameter set by way of the “copy” tool.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (i.e., roadmap), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
“The stated reason for the proposed combination states that “One would have been motivated… to reduce the amount of data needed and to increase the robustness against packet losses.” P. 7 of the Office Action. Applicant, however, submits that a person of skill in the art would have understood these two stated motivation actually have conflicting impact on bitstream generation and decoding. Reduced amount of data often means that each bit becomes more precious in terms of underlying information it carries, which is an entirely different effect than attempting to improve robustness of packet loss, which typically means some amount of redundancy is added to bitstream to improve robustness.” (Remarks, p. 3.)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In fact, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have found any conflict, because the motivation is a quote from Drugeon, which is a JCT-VC proposal. Drugeon explicitly states, “This contribution proposes a new alternative for partial update of APS, which further reduces the bitrate and is more robust against packet losses compared to the solution using an additional NAL unit type, while keeping the advantages of the APS partial update” (emphasis added). See Drugeon, p. 5, Conclusion. Drugeon explains in p. 2, Section 2, “the idea is to have “self-contained” APS where all the information necessary to fill up the memory location is contained in the APS NAL unit itself. This saves the bits necessary to transmit a maintenance NAL unit.” Subsequently, Drugeon explains in p. 4, Section 3, “[t]he APS referred to shall not copy the parameters from another APS. This restriction is introduced to avoid long chains of references that may reduce the error robustness of the proposed scheme.” Therefore, the Examiner finds a person having ordinary skill in the art would have considered the combination in view of the provided motivation.
“For example, the Examiner fails to justify why adding “copy” flag of Drugeon’s technique to Li would improve robustness against packet loss. In fact, a person of skill in the art would have understood that, if the APS that includes information-to-be-copied, is lost, then such a loss may cause a detrimental impact on the parameter tool that was relying on this copy operation.” (Remarks, p. 3.)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Drugeon describes robustness against packet loss is achieved by restricting the copy of parameters from another APS from a referred APS. See Drugeon, p. 4, Section 3. A person having ordinary skill in the art readily recognizes a reduction in bitrate can have drawbacks; however, Drugeon creates a copy restriction for mitigating complications associated with packet loss and thereby presents a more robust solution to packet loss when compared to other such solution, including Applicant’s own claimed solution. Therefore, Drugeon’s solution reduces bitrate while being more robust against packet losses when compared to other solutions. For these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 9-12, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2014/0294067 A1 (hereinafter “Li”) in view of Drugeon et al., “AHG15: Partial APS update” JCTVC-H0381 (hereinafter “Drugeon”).
Regarding claim 9, Li discloses an apparatus for video decoding, comprising at least one processor configured to cause the apparatus to implement a video decoding method ([0001], “method and device for encoding and decoding parameter sets.” [0012], “decoder parses the binary bit-stream.” [0516], “computer”), comprising:
obtaining a first parameter set identifier from a data unit containing bits corresponding to a coded video region (FIG. 1, “Decoding multiple parameter sets referred to by the current slice, according to the parameter set identifier(s) in the bit-stream of the current slice.” [0468], “aps_id indicates the identifier of the APS referred to by the current slice for determining the picture-level coding tools used in the process of encoding/decoding the current slice”);
obtaining a tool flag from a first parameter set corresponding to the first parameter set identifier (Table 13, “aps_id” and “aps_tool_A_flag.” Note, the aps_id indicates the APS for the current slice, as per [0468]);
determining, from the tool flag, that a tool parameter of a tool corresponding to the tool flag is present or enabled for decoding the coded video region, wherein the tool corresponds to a video coding technique ([0461], “The implications of aps_tool_A_flag and aps_tool_B_flag can be similar to the SAO On/Off flag aps_sample_adaptive_offset_flag and the ALF On/Off flag aps_adaptive_loop_filter_flag in Table 1 in Embodiment 1. The aps_tool_A_flag can be defined as the On/Off flag of a tool.” Table 13, “if (aps_tool_A_flag) tool_A_param()”);
obtaining another tool flag from the first parameter set (Table 13, “aps_id” “aps_tool_B_flag.” Note, the aps_id indicates the APS for the current slice, as per [0468]);
deciding, from the another tool flag, that another tool parameter of another tool corresponding to the another tool flag is present or enabled for decoding the coded video region ([0461], “The implications of aps_tool_A_flag and aps_tool_B_flag can be similar to the SAO On/Off flag aps_sample_adaptive_offset_flag and the ALF On/Off flag aps_adaptive_loop_filter_flag in Table 1 in Embodiment 1. […] The aps_tool_B_flag can be defined as the On/Off flag of tool B.” Table 13, “if (aps_tool_B_flag) tool_B_param()”);
wherein the decoding the coded video region includes decoding the coded video region using the tool parameter and the another tool parameter (Table 13, “if (aps_tool_A_flag) tool_A_param()” and “(aps_tool_B_flag) tool_B_param().” [0014], “the decoder configures the coding tools according to the APS and uses the configured coding tools to reconstruct pixels in the slice, and the process of decoding the current slice ends.” Note, the “the tool parameter” corresponds to tool A parameters and the “the another tool parameter” corresponds to tool B parameters).
Li fails to expressly disclose obtaining, based on the determining, a second parameter set identifier;
obtaining the tool parameter from a second parameter set corresponding to the second parameter set identifier;
obtaining, based on the deciding, a third parameter set identifier; and
obtaining the another tool parameter from a third parameter set corresponding to the third parameter set identifier.
However, Drugeon teaches obtaining, based on the determining, a second parameter set identifier (p. 4, aps_rbsp identifies a different aps_id if a tool is present and a “copy_flag” of a tool is true);
obtaining the tool parameter from a second parameter set corresponding to the second parameter set identifier (p. 4, aps_rbsp identifies a different aps_id if a “copy_flag” of a tool is true for using the tool parameter from the parameter set corresponding to the other aps_id. For instance, FIG. 3 depicts APS 2 (i.e., aps_id 2) with SAO copy from APS 0 (i.e., aps_id 0));
obtaining, based on the deciding, a third parameter set identifier (p. 4, aps_rbsp identifies a different aps_id if a tool is present and “copy_flag” of a tool is true); and
obtaining the another tool parameter from a third parameter set corresponding to the third parameter set identifier (p. 4, aps_rbsp identifies a different aps_id if a “copy_flag” of a tool is true for using the tool parameter from the parameter set corresponding to the other aps_id. For instance, FIG. 3 depicts APS 3 (i.e., aps_id 3) with ALF copy from APS 1 (i.e., aps_id 1). Additionally, an active APS can copy tools from different apd_id, such as APS 3 copying from APS 0 and 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have copied tools from a different APS, as taught by Drugeon (FIG. 3), in Li’s disclosure. One would have been motivated to modify Li’s invention, by incorporating Drugeon’s invention, to “further reduces the bitrate and is more robust against packet losses compared to the solution using an additional NAL unit type, while keeping the advantages of the APS partial update” (Drugeon: p. 4, Conclusion). Drugeon’s conclusion is based on p. 1, Section 1 describing how a “partial update” with the copying process saves bits, then in p. 2. Section 2 describing how additional bits can be saved, and finally in p. 4, Section 3 describing how to reduce error propagation in case of an APS packet loss.
Regarding claim 10, Li and Drugeon disclose every limitation of claim 9, as outlined above. Additionally, Li discloses wherein the coded video region is smaller than a video picture ([0014], “the decoder configures the coding tools according to the APS and uses the configured coding tools to reconstruct pixels in the slice, and the process of decoding the current slice ends.” Note, a slice is defined as a portion of a video picture).
Regarding claim 11, Li and Drugeon disclose every limitation of claim 9, as outlined above. Additionally, Li discloses wherein the video coding technique is based on coding parameters that are common to multiple coding blocks in the coded video region ([0460], “In Table 13, tool_A and tool_B refer to a picture-level coding tool, for example, SAO and ALF.” Note, these tools can be identified at picture or slice level, being common to the multiple coding blocks of the region associated with the identified level).
Regarding claim 12, Li and Drugeon disclose every limitation of claim 9, as outlined above. Additionally, Li discloses wherein the tool comprises adaptive loop filter (ALF) tool ([0461], “The implications of aps_tool_A_flag and aps_tool_B_flag can be similar to the SAO On/Off flag aps_sample_adaptive_offset_flag and the ALF On/Off flag aps_adaptive_loop_filter_flag in Table 1 in Embodiment 1).
Li fails to expressly disclose the another tool comprises scaling list coding tool.
However, Drugeon teaches the another tool comprises scaling list coding tool (FIG. 4, aps_rbsp() includes a plurality of other tools including scaling list). The same motivation of claim 9 applies equally as well to claim 12.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations are the same as those in claim 9; however, written from the perspective of the encoder instead of a decoder, which consists of performing the same operations in the inverse. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 9 applies equally as well to claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations are the same as those in claim 10. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 10 applies equally as well to claim 18.
Claim(s) 13, 14, 16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2014/0294067 A1 (hereinafter “Li”) in view of Drugeon et al., “AHG15: Partial APS update” JCTVC-H0381 (hereinafter “Drugeon”), and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2014/0133547 A1 (hereinafter “Tanaka”).
Regarding claim 13, Li and Drugeon disclose every limitation of claim 9, as outlined above. Li and Drugeon fail to expressly disclose wherein the second parameter set and the third parameter set comprise only one type of tool parameters.
However, Tanaka discloses wherein the second parameter set and the third parameter set comprise only one type of tool parameters (FIG. 2 depicts an embodiment with an APS containing multiple tools and FIG. 6 depicts an embodiment where each APS contains a single tool, using APS_ALF, APS_SAO, and APS_QM).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have APS with one type of filter parameters, as taught by Tanaka (FIG. 6), in Li and Drugeon’s disclosure. One would have been motivated to modify Li and Drugeon’s disclosure, by incorporating Tanaka’s invention, to avoid redundant transmission of parameters according to update requirements of parameter sets (Tanaka: ¶ [0006]).
Regarding claim 14, Li and Drugeon disclose every limitation of claim 9, as outlined above. Li and Drugeon fail to expressly disclose wherein network abstraction layer (NAL) type of packets carrying the second parameter set and the third parameter have a same NAL unit type.
However, Tanaka teaches wherein network abstraction layer (NAL) type of packets carrying the second parameter set and the third parameter have a same NAL unit type (FIG. 2 discloses using a single APS with multiple tools, thereby having the same NAL unit type, which is distinct from FIG. 6 that discloses unique APS for each tool and thereby having different NAL unit type, see [0106]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have APS with one type of filter parameters, as taught by Tanaka (FIG. 6), in Li and Drugeon’s disclosure. One would have been motivated to modify Li and Drugeon’s disclosure, by incorporating Tanaka’s invention, to avoid redundant transmission of parameters according to update requirements of parameter sets (Tanaka: ¶ [0006]).
Regarding claim 16, Li and Drugeon disclose every limitation of claim 9, as outlined above. Li and Drugeon fail to expressly disclose wherein the second parameter set contains tool parameters only for an adaptive loop filter coding tool and wherein the third parameter set contains tool parameters only for a scaling list coding tool.
However, Tanaka teaches wherein the second parameter set contains tool parameters only for an adaptive loop filter coding tool and wherein the third parameter set contains tool parameters only for a scaling list coding tool (FIG. 2 depicts an embodiment with an APS containing multiple tools and FIG. 6 depicts an embodiment where each APS contains a single tool, using APS_ALF, APS_SAO, and APS_QM, each with their own parameters. Note, scaling list is also referred to as quantization matrix (QM)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have different APS with one type of filter parameters each, as taught by Tanaka (FIG. 6), in Li and Drugeon’s disclosure. One would have been motivated to modify Li and Drugeon’s disclosure, by incorporating Tanaka’s invention, to avoid redundant transmission of parameters according to update requirements of parameter sets (Tanaka: ¶ [0006]).
Regarding claim 19, the limitations are the same as those in claim 13. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 13 applies equally as well to claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations are the same as those in claim 16. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 16 applies equally as well to claim 20.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2014/0294067 A1 (hereinafter “Li”) in view of Drugeon et al., “AHG15: Partial APS update” JCTVC-H0381 (hereinafter “Drugeon”), and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2014/0092996 A1 (hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 15, Li and Drugeon disclose every limitation of claim 9, as outlined above. Li and Drugeon fail to expressly disclose wherein the tool flag and the another tool flag are obtained by performing entropy decoding.
However, Wang teaches wherein the tool flag and the another tool flag are obtained by performing entropy decoding ([0148], “Entropy decoding unit 70 of video decoder 30 entropy decodes the bitstream provided by network entity 29 to generate […] syntax elements […]. Video decoder 30 may receive the different syntax elements at different parts of the encoded bitstream. For example, some syntax elements may be received at the VPS level, SPS level, or APS level.” Note, all syntax elements received by the decoder 30 are parsed through the entropy decoding unit 70, including the APS parameters, which would include the two tool flags).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used an entropy decoder to obtain APS parameters, as taught by Wang ([0148]), in Li and Drugeon’s disclosure. One would have been motivated to modify Li and Drugeon’s disclosure, by incorporating Wang’s invention, because it is an obvious use of a known technique for parsing syntax elements to improve decoders in the same way (see MPEP § 2143(I)(C)) and to code video information efficiently (Wang: ¶ [0003]).
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) 21-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2016/0337661 A1 (hereinafter “Pang”).
Regarding claim 21, Pang discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream of a coded video, the bitstream comprises: […] ([0047], “encoded data may be output from output interface 22 of source device 12 to a storage device 32. […] The storage device 32 may include […] non-volatile memory, or any other suitable digital storage media for storing encoded video data.” Note, the body of the claim beyond the preamble is non-functional descriptive subject matter under the broadest reasonable interpretation, because the claim is directed to a product (e.g., non-transitory computer-readable storage medium) storing a bitstream, where the bitstream does not functionally or structurally change the product. See MPEP § 2111.05(III), which states, “[where] the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists.” The claim does not require any programming associated with the bitstream, only the bitstream itself to be stored on the computer-readable storage medium).
Regarding claims 22-28, each of the dependent claims further define the bitstream without adding any functional relationship to the computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, the subject matter in each of the dependent claims constitutes non-functional descriptive matter. Pang discloses a bitstream ([0047], “encoded data may be output from output interface 22 of source device 12 to a storage device 32. […] The storage device 32 may include […] non-volatile memory, or any other suitable digital storage media for storing encoded video data”).
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 9-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,126,834 (hereinafter “Patent ‘834”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each independent claim is entirely anticipated by each respective independent claim in Patent ‘834 with the subject matter of claim 5.
The table below exemplifies the similarities between independent claim 9 of the instant application and independent claim 9 with claim 5 of Patent ‘834.
Instant Application – Claim 9
Patent ‘834 – Claims 1 and 5
An apparatus for video decoding, comprising at least one processor configured to cause the apparatus to implement a video decoding method comprising:
A method of bitstream processing, comprising:
Obtaining a first parameter set identifier from a data unit containing bits corresponding to a coded video region;
Obtaining a first parameter set identifier from a data unit containing bits corresponding to a coded video region;
Activating a first parameter set with its identifier equal to the first parameter set identifier;
Obtaining a tool flag from a first parameter set corresponding to the first parameter set identifier;
Obtaining a tool flag from the first parameter set corresponding to the first parameter set identifier;
Determining, from the tool flag, that a tool parameter of a tool corresponding to the tool flag is present or enabled for decoding the coded video region, wherein the tool corresponding to a video coding technique;
Determining, from the tool flag, a tool parameter of a tool corresponding to the tool flag is present or enabled for decoding the coded video region, wherein the tool corresponds to a video coding technique;
Obtaining, based on the determining, a second parameter set identifier;
Obtaining, based on the determining, a second parameter set identifier from the first parameter set;
Activating a second parameter set with its identifier equal to the second parameter set identifier, wherein the second parameter set includes the tool parameter of a single tool present in the second parameter set;
Obtaining the tool parameter from a second parameter set corresponding to the second parameter set identifier;
Obtaining the tool parameter from the second parameter set corresponding to the second parameter set identifier;
Obtaining another tool flag from the first parameter set;
Obtaining another tool flag from the first parameter set;
Deciding, from the another tool flag, that another tool parameter of another tool corresponding to the another tool flag is present or enabled for decoding the coded video region;
Deciding, from the tool flag, that another tool parameter of another tool corresponding to the another tool flag is present or enabled for decoding the coded video region;
Obtaining, based on the deciding, a third parameter set identifier; and
Obtaining, based on the deciding, a third parameter set identifier; and
Obtaining the other tool parameter from a third parameter set corresponding to the third parameter set identifier; and
Obtaining the another tool parameter from a third parameter set corresponding to the third parameter set identifier; and
Wherein the decoding the coded video region includes decoding the coded video region using the tool parameter and the another tool parameter.
Wherein the decoding the video region includes decoding the video region using the tool parameter and the another tool parameter.
Note: The right column consolidates claims 1 and 5, combining the limitations in a consistent manner with the intended scope.
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 STUART D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-0677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 AM - 5PM 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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/STUART D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights