DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the application filing on 21 OCTOBER 2024 and the Information Disclosure Statements.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2024 and 01/30/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because FIG. 5 includes a typographical error, where “too_B_flag” should read --tool_B_flag--. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 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.
With regard to claims 1, 9, and 17, it is unclear which tool flag is referenced by “the tool flag” in the limitation “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” (emphasis added). The term “the tool flag” could be interpreted to reference either “a tool flag” or “another tool flag;” however, the functionality corresponds to “another tool flag.” According to FIG. 5 of the instant application, the “a tool flag” is “tool_A_flag” and the “another tool flag” is “tool_B_flag,” which indicates the “the tool flag” in the limitation above should be “the another tool flag” to correctly establish antecedent basis with the proper tool parameters. For examination purposes, the “the tool flag” will be interpreted as referencing the most recently obtain tool flag, which is the “another tool flag.”
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) 1-4, 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 1, Li discloses a method of video decoding ([0001], “method and device for encoding and decoding parameter sets.” [0012], “decoder parses the binary bit-stream”), 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 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 reduce the amount of data needed and to increase the robustness against packet losses (Drugeon: p. 4, Conclusion).
Regarding claim 2, Li and Drugeon disclose every limitation of claim 1, 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 3, Li and Drugeon disclose every limitation of claim 1, 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 4, Li and Drugeon disclose every limitation of claim 1, 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 1 applies equally as well to claim 4.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations are the same as those in claim 1. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 9. Additionally, Li discloses at least one processor ([0516], “computer”).
Regarding claim 10, the limitations are the same as those in claim 2. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations are the same as those in claim 3. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 3 applies equally as well to claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations are the same as those in claim 4. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 4 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 2. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 18.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 8, 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 5, Li and Drugeon disclose every limitation of claim 1, 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 6, Li and Drugeon disclose every limitation of claim 1, 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 8, Li and Drugeon disclose every limitation of claim 1, 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 13, the limitations are the same as those in claim 5. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 5 applies equally as well to claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations are the same as those in claim 6. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 6 applies equally as well to claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations are the same as those in claim 8. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 8 applies equally as well to claim 16.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations are the same as those in claim 5. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 5 applies equally as well to claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations are the same as those in claim 8. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 8 applies equally as well to claim 20.
Claim(s) 7 and 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 7, Li and Drugeon disclose every limitation of claim 1, 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]).
Regarding claim 15, the limitations are the same as those in claim 7. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 7 applies equally as well to claim 15.
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 1-20 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 1 of the instant application and independent claim 1 with claim 5 of Patent ‘834.
Instant Application – Claim 1
Patent ‘834 – Claims 1 and 5
A method of video decoding, 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 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Publication No. 2013/0188733 A1 (hereinafter “Van der Auwera”) – Discloses tool signaling in the APS, the tools being deblocking filter, ALF, SAO, and scaling list. See Van der Auwera, ¶ [0161].
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