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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 filed on June 22, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjöberg et al. (US20220150495A1), hereinafter referred to as Sjöberg495, in view of Hannuksela (US20210281858A1), hereinafter referred to as Hannuksela.
Regarding claim 1, Sjöberg495 discloses method implemented in a decoder, characterized in that, the method comprising (See Abstract and ¶¶[0009]-[0014]):
receiving a bitstream including: a sub-picture of a picture partitioned into a plurality of slices including a first slice and a slice header associated with the first slice, wherein the first slice comprises one or more tile (See ¶¶[0079], [0081], [0093], [0179] and [0183] disclosing “[p]rocess 900 is a method for decoding a picture from a bitstream, the picture being partitioned into a plurality of segment group,” and that and that decoding includes “decoding a first segment group;” “segment groups correspond to tile groups, subpictures, and/or slices;” “decoder may decode a segment group header corresponding to the current segment group;” and that “num_tiles_in_tile_group_minus1 plus 1 specifies the number of tiles in the group”)
decoding the bitstream to create a video sequence of sub-pictures including the first slice based on the slice address (See ¶[0179] disclosing “determining a first spatial location for the first segment group based on the first segment group address” and “decoding at least one sample value for the first segment group and assigning the at least one sample value to a location in the decoded picture given by the first spatial location”).
determining a slice address for the first slice from the slice header based on the See ¶¶[0079]- [0081], [0088]- [0091], [0180]- [0183] disclosing that “[i]n each segment group header, there is one or more code words 612 that are decoded by the decoder into an index value i” and that “[t] index value i is used as an index into LIST to derive a segment group address value for the segment group, such as the address becomes equal to LIST[i];” and further disclosing that the selected address value corresponds to the spatial location of the segment group within the picture); and
Sjöberg495 does not explicitly disclose parsing a parameter for deriving a value of a number of bits used to represent a tile address of a first tile in the first slice wherein the value of the number of bits used to represent the tile address of the first tile in the first slice is inferred to be equal to Ceil( Log2( NumTilesInPic ) depending on whether the parameter is present or not and determining a slice address for the first slice from the slice header based on the value of the number of bits used to represent the tile address of the first tile in the first slice
However, Hannuksela from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses parsing a parameter for deriving a value of a number of bits used to represent a tile address of a first tile in the first slice (See ¶¶[0140]-[0141] disclosing a slice-segment-header syntax containing slice_tile_id and states that “slice_tile_id specifies that the first coding tree block in the slice segment is the top-left coding tree block of the tile identified by the slice_tile_id value” and that “[t]he length of the slice_tile_id syntax element is determined by the PPS in use”);
wherein the value of the number of bits used to represent the tile address of the first tile in the first slice is inferred to be equal to Ceil( Log2( NumTilesInPic ) depending on whether the parameter is present or not (See ¶¶[0142]-[0144] disclosing deriving the value of number of bits used to represent a tile address from a parameter when the parameter is present, and inferring that the value is equal to Ceil(Log2(NumTilesInPic)) when the value is not indicated).
determining a slice address for the first slice from the slice header based on the value of the number of bits used to represent the tile address of the first tile in the first slice (See ¶¶[0140]-[0144] disclosing the fixed-length `slice_tile_id` is parsed from the slice header using the number of bits determined by the PPS or inferred, and the resulting value identifies the tile whose top-left coding tree block (CTB) is the first coding tree block of the slice. Thus, the parsed value determines the address or starting location of the slice).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaches of Hannuksela to include the teaches of Sjöberg495 as above in order to enable extracting of a subset of tiles into their own bitstream without slice header modifications or with fewer slice header modification (Hannuksela , ¶[0143]);
Regarding claim 2, Sjöberg495 and Hannuksela disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Sjöberg495 discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising forwarding the sub-picture for display (See ¶¶, [0016], [0019] and [0197])
Regarding claim 5, Sjöberg495 discloses method implemented in an encoder, the method comprising (See ¶¶[0195]-[0197]. See also ¶¶[0188] and [0189] ):
encoding a picture in a bitstream, wherein the picture comprises a plurality of slices including a first slice, and wherein the first slice comprises one or more tiles (See ¶¶ [0183], [0187]–[0190], and [0195);
Sjöberg495 does not explicitly disclose encoding in the bitstream a parameter for deriving a value of a number of bits used to represent a tile address of a first tile in the first slice, wherein the value of the number of bits used to represent the tile address of the first tile in the first slice is inferred to be equal to Ceil( Log2( NumTilesInPic) depending on whether the parameter is present or not; and encoding in the bitstream a slice address of the first slice based on the value of the number of bits used to represent the tile address of the first tile in the first slice.
However, Hannuksela from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses encoding in the bitstream a parameter for deriving a value of a number of bits used to represent a tile address of a first tile in the first slice, wherein the value of the number of bits used to represent the tile address of the first tile in the first slice is inferred to be equal to Ceil( Log2( NumTilesInPic) depending on whether the parameter is present or not; and encoding in the bitstream a slice address of the first slice based on the value of the number of bits used to represent the tile address of the first tile in the first slice (See ¶¶ [0140]-[0144]).
The Examiner notes that Hannuksela also discloses encoding, into a slice header of a slice of the one or more slices, one or more tile identifiers indicative of one or more tile positions for one or more tiles in the slice in ¶[0005]
The motivation for combining Sjöberg495 and Hannuksela has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 6, Sjöberg495 and Hannuksela disclose all the limitations of claim 5, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Sjöberg495 discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising storing the bitstream for communication toward a decoder. (See Fig. 14 and ¶[0197])
Regarding claim 8, Sjöberg495 and Hannuksela disclose all the limitations of claim 5, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Sjöberg495 does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 5, further comprising encoding in the parameter set an identifier (ID) flag indicating a mapping is available to map the slice address from a picture based position to a sub-picture based position.
However, Huang from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising encoding in the parameter set an identifier (ID) flag indicating a mapping is available to map the slice address from a picture based position to a sub-picture based position (See ¶¶[0155]-[0162])
The motivation for combining Sjöberg495 and Hannuksela has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 10, Sjöberg495 and Hannuksela disclose all the limitations of claim 5, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Sjöberg495 discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising extracting the sub-picture of the picture, wherein the sub-picture includes the first slice, and wherein the bitstream comprises the sub-picture and a slice header (See ¶¶[0010]-[0014], [0028]-[0031] , [0036] and [0088]).
Regarding claim 11, Sjöberg495 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream that, when parsed by a coding device, is used by the coding device to generate a video, the bitstream comprising (See Fig. 14 and ¶¶ [0197]-[0199]):
data representing a sub-picture of a picture partitioned into a plurality of slices including a first slice (See ¶¶[0009]-[0014], [0022]-[0023], [0036], [0052]-[0053], and [0197]);
a slice header associated with the first slice wherein the first slice comprises one or more tile (See ¶¶ [0070]-[0072] and [0088]-[0091]); and
Sjöberg495 does not explicitly disclose a parameter for deriving a value of a number of bits used to represent a tile address of a first tile in the first slice, wherein the value of the number of bits used to represent the tile address of the first tile in the first slice is inferred to be equal to Ceil(Log2(NumTilesInPic) depending on whether the parameter is present or not, wherein the value of the number of bits used to represent the tile address of the first tile in the first slice is used to determine a slice address for the first slice from the slice header.
However, Huang from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses a parameter for deriving a value of a number of bits used to represent a tile address of a first tile in the first slice, wherein the value of the number of bits used to represent the tile address of the first tile in the first slice is inferred to be equal to Ceil(Log2(NumTilesInPic) depending on whether the parameter is present or not, wherein the value of the number of bits used to represent the tile address of the first tile in the first slice is used to determine a slice address for the first slice from the slice header (See ¶¶ [0140]-[0144])
The motivation for combining Sjöberg495 and Hannuksela has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 13, Sjöberg495 discloses all the limitations of claim 11, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Sjöberg495 discloses non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11, wherein the bitstream further comprises a parameter set that comprises an identifier (ID) flag indicating a mapping is available to map the slice address from a picture based position to a sub-picture based position (See ¶¶[0079]-[0085], [0088], [0090] and [0155]-[0162]).
Regarding claim 15, Sjöberg495 and Hannuksela disclose all the limitations of claim 11, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Sjöberg495 discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11, wherein the picture includes the sub-picture, wherein the sub-picture includes the first slice, and wherein a sub-bitstream comprises the sub-picture and the slice header (See ¶¶[0010]-[0014], [0022] and [0028]-[0031] and [0036])
Regarding claim 16, Sjöberg495 and Hannuksela disclose all the limitations of claim 11, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Sjöberg495 does not explicitly disclose the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11, wherein the bitstream further comprises a sequence parameter set (SPS), and wherein SPS comprises an array of sub-picture identifiers (IDs) that identify sub-pictures in the bitstream .
However, Huang from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11, wherein the bitstream further comprises a sequence parameter set (SPS), and wherein SPS comprises an array of sub-picture identifiers (IDs) that identify sub-pictures in the bitstream (See ¶¶[0157]-[0159], [0183], [0184] and [0224])
The motivation for combining Sjöberg495 and Hannuksela has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 17, Sjöberg495 and Hannuksela disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Sjöberg495 does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the bitstream further comprises a sequence parameter set (SPS), and wherein SPS comprises an array of sub-picture identifiers (IDs) that identify sub- pictures in the bitstream. .
However, Huang from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the bitstream further comprises a sequence parameter set (SPS), and wherein SPS comprises an array of sub-picture identifiers (IDs) that identify sub- pictures in the bitstream. (See ¶¶[0157]-[0159], [0183], [0184] and [0224])
The motivation for combining Sjöberg495 and Hannuksela has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 18, Sjöberg495 and Hannuksela disclose all the limitations of claim 5, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Sjöberg495 does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 5, wherein the bitstream further comprises a sequence parameter set (SPS), and wherein SPS comprises an array of sub-picture identifiers (IDs) that identify sub- pictures in the bitstream.
However, Huang from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the bitstream further comprises a sequence parameter set (SPS), and wherein SPS comprises an array of sub-picture identifiers (IDs) that identify sub- pictures in the bitstream (See ¶¶[0157]-[0159], [0183], [0184] and [0224])
The motivation for combining Sjöberg495 and Hannuksela has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Claims 3, 4, 7, 9, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjöberg495, in view of Sjöberg et al. (US20140362912A1), hereinafter referred to as Sjöberg912
Regarding claim 3, Sjöberg495 and Hannuksela disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Sjöberg495 does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein a length of the slice address indicates a number of bits contained in the slice address
However, Sjöberg912 from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a length of the slice address indicates a number of bits contained in the slice address (See ¶¶ [0073]-[0074])
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Sjöberg912 direct address value into Sjöberg495 index based approach to achieve deterministic bit boundary parsing without requiring indexing. A simple substitution of known alternatives yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Sjöberg495 discloses all the limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Sjöberg495 does not explicitly disclose method of claim 2, wherein determining the slice address for the first slice comprises:
employing a length of the slice address to determine bit boundaries for interpreting the slice address from the slice header; and
employing the slice address to map slice addresses from a picture based position to a sub-picture based position.
However, Sjöberg912 from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses method of claim 2, wherein determining the slice address for the first slice comprises:
employing a length of the slice address to determine bit boundaries for interpreting the slice address from the slice header (See ¶¶[0073], [0074] and [0081]); and
employing the slice address to map slice addresses from a picture based position to a sub-picture based position (See Fig. 9 and ¶¶[0067]-[0069], [0073]-[0074] and [0153]-[0154]).
The motivation for combining Sjöberg495, Hannuksela and Sjöberg912 has been discussed in connection with claim 3, above.
Regarding claim 7, Sjöberg495 and Hannuksela disclose all the limitations of claim 5, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Sjöberg495 does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 5, wherein a length of the slice address indicates a number of bits contained in the slice address.
However, Sjöberg912 from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 5, wherein a length of the slice address indicates a number of bits contained in the slice address.(See ¶¶[0073], [0074] and [0081]); and
The motivation for combining Sjöberg495, Hannuksela and Sjöberg912 has been discussed in connection with claim 3, above.
Regarding claim 9, Sjöberg495 and Sjöberg912 disclose all the limitations of claim 5, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Sjöberg495 does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 5, wherein the slice address comprises a defined value and does not comprise an index.
However, Sjöberg912 from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the slice address comprises a defined value and does not comprise an index (See Fig. 6 and ¶¶[0042]-[0044] [0073] -[0074]).
The motivation for combining Sjöberg495, Hannuksela and Sjöberg912 has been discussed in connection with claims 1 and 3, above.
Regarding claim 12, Sjöberg495 and Hannuksela disclose all the limitations of claim 11, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Sjöberg495 does not explicitly disclose the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11, wherein a length of the slice address indicates a number of bits contained in the slice address.
However, Sjöberg912 from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11, wherein a length of the slice address indicates a number of bits contained in the slice address (See ¶¶ [0073], [0074] and [0175]).
The motivation for combining Sjöberg495, Hannuksela and Sjöberg912 has been discussed in connection with claims 1 and 3, above.
Regarding claim 14, Sjöberg495, Hannuksela and Sjöberg912 disclose all the limitations of claim 11, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Sjöberg495 does not explicitly disclose the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11, wherein the slice address comprises a defined value and does not comprise an index.
However, Sjöberg912 from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11, wherein the slice address comprises a defined value and does not comprise an index (See Fig. 6 and ¶¶[0042]-[0044] [0073] -[0074]).
The motivation for combining Sjöberg495, Hannuksela and Sjöberg912 has been discussed in connection with claims 1 and 3, above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIO LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM (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 on (571) 272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FABIO S LIMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights