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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on 8 May 2026 and 8 June 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the primary reference, Agarwal, does not disclose the maximum tolerance error (MTE) of the claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees and respectfully submits the MTE of the claims appears broad and looking to the specification for clarity, Examiner finds ¶ [0114] “The value of max_tolerance_error is determined at the encoder end as a function of a list of factors. Such factors may include: AI hardware/platform and implementation details of the encoder and the targeted decoder; and the dataset to be encoded/decoded.” Examiner respectfully submits the smallest error of Agarwal appears to be determined as a function of the dataset to be encoded/decoded as required by the claims.
Applicant argue Agarwal does not disclose “performing a protection process on the decoded plurality of data samples using the safeguard payload information”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and respectfully submits any process with uses any data determined as a function of the dataset appears to fulfill the broad requirements of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 9-14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Agarwal (US 5812788 A).
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 12, Agarwal discloses a apparatus to perform a method comprising: obtaining a first bitstream comprising a plurality of encoded data samples [Agarwal: Col. 28, l. 67: The bitstream supports pictures in different formats]; obtaining a second bitstream comprising a safeguard syntax structure [Agarwal: Col. 29, ll. 11-12: All plane information is stored in the picture header]; decoding the plurality of data samples [Agarwal: Col. 28, ll. 48-52: the encoded bitstream generated by the encoding system of FIG. 1 and decoded by the decoding system of FIG. 2. The bitstream structure is hierarchial [sp]; that is, the bitstream consists of data at several layers]; obtaining safeguard payload information from the safeguard syntax structure [Agarwal: Col. 10, ll. 49-59: In a logarithm search, the current block is compared with a subset of the reference blocks in the search region (i.e., at coarse sample points). The reference block with the smallest error (call it "reference block A") is then used to select a second subset of reference blocks in the neighborhood of reference block A (i.e., at finer sample points). The reference block with the smallest error from the current subset either is used to generate the motion vector for the current block or is used to select yet another subset of reference blocks (i.e., at still finer sample points), depending upon how many levels are selected for the logarithm search], wherein the safeguard payload information comprises a maximum tolerance error (MTE) [Agarwal: Col. 49-59: the smallest error] and information regarding a set of risky samples [Agarwal: Col. 10, ll. 49-59: The reference block]; and performing a protection process on the decoded plurality of data samples using the safeguard payload information [Agarwal: Col. 10, ll. 49-59: select a second subset of reference blocks].
Regarding Claims 2 and 13, Agarwal discloses all the limitations of Claims 1 and 12, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Agarwal discloses wherein the set of risky samples is a subset of the plurality of data samples [Agarwal: Col. 10, ll. 49-59: The reference block with the smallest error (call it "reference block A") is then used to select a second subset of reference blocks in the neighborhood of reference block A (i.e., at finer sample points)].
Regarding Claims 3 and 14, Agarwal discloses all the limitations of Claims 1 and 12, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Agarwal discloses wherein the safeguard syntax structure comprises sample values for each member of a set of risky samples [Agarwal: Col. 10, ll. 49-59: The reference block with the smallest error (call it "reference block A") is then used to select a second subset of reference blocks in the neighborhood of reference block A (i.e., at finer sample points)].
Regarding Claims 6 and 17, Agarwal discloses all the limitations of Claims 1 and 12, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Agarwal discloses wherein the MTE applies to at least one of a sequence parameter set, a frame parameter set, a set of blocks, a block, a set of slices, and a slice corresponding to at least one of the plurality of data samples [Agarwal: Col. 10, ll. 49-59: reference block].
Regarding Claim 9, Agarwal discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Agarwal discloses wherein performing the protection process on the decoded plurality of data samples comprises determining whether at least one of the decoded plurality of data samples is within the MTE for decoding [Agarwal: Col. 49-59: the smallest error].
Regarding Claim 10, Agarwal discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Agarwal discloses wherein performing the protection process on the decoded plurality of data samples changes a value of at least one of the plurality of data samples [Agarwal: Col. 10, ll. 49-59: The reference block with the smallest error (call it "reference block A") is then used to select a second subset of reference blocks in the neighborhood of reference block A (i.e., at finer sample points)].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2022/0109877 A1).
Regarding Claims 4 and 15, Agarwal discloses all the limitations of Claims 1 and 12, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Agarwal may not explicitly disclose wherein the safeguard syntax structure comprises a flag for each of the plurality of data samples, and wherein each of the flags indicates whether the corresponding data sample is a member of the set of risky samples.
However, Choi wherein the safeguard syntax structure comprises a flag for each of the plurality of data samples, and wherein each of the flags indicates whether the corresponding data sample is a member of the set of risky samples [Choi: ¶ [0334]: In general, the syntax structure of the transform unit or the coding unit may include a syntax element mainly corresponding to mode information, and the residual coding syntax structure may include a syntax element associated with a value (that is, sample data) of a transform coefficient, and thus, it is desirable to obtain a syntax element related to the mode information, such as a syntax element according to MTS, from the syntax structure of the coding unit or the transform unit including the syntax element mainly corresponding to the mode information, rather than the residual coding syntax structure, and in this case, a parsing delay may also be reduced].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the processing of Agarwal with the encoding syntax structure of Choi in order to reduce parsing delay (see, Choi: ¶ [0334]).
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Sole Rojals (US 2017/0085878 A1).
Regarding Claims 5 and 16, Agarwal discloses all the limitations of Claims 1 and 12, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Agarwal may not explicitly disclose wherein the safeguard syntax structure comprises a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message.
However, Sole discloses wherein the safeguard syntax structure comprises a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message [Sole: ¶ [0006]-[0010]: In accordance with the techniques of this disclosure, any or all of these postprocessing procedures may be controlled using syntax elements of the coded video bitstream, such as a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the processing of Agarwal with the encoding method of Sole in order to provide well-known structure to improve usability.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Duluk et al. (US 7739556 B1).
Regarding Claims 7 and 18, Agarwal discloses all the limitations of Claims 1 and 12, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Agarwal may not explicitly disclose overriding the MTE with an override value based on a status parameter corresponding to at least one of the plurality of data samples.
However, Duluk discloses further comprising overriding the MTE with an override value based on a status parameter corresponding to at least one of the plurality of data samples [Duluk: Col. 14, ll. 21-25: If, in step 812 override monitor 700 determines that the input setting should not be overridden to avoid the error condition, then in step 814, override monitor 700 sets the override flag in override state 725 for the particular setting that should be overridden to avoid the error condition].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the processing of Agarwal with the syntax of Duluk in order to reduce computation time.
Regarding Claims 8 and 19, Agarwal in view of Duluk discloses all the limitations of Claims 7 and 18, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Agarwal in view of Duluk discloses wherein the status parameter is an override flag [Duluk: Col. 14, l. 24: override flag].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of He (US 2022/0141488 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Agarwal discloses all the limitations of Claim 12 and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Agarwal may not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of data samples comprises a point cloud.
However, He discloses wherein the plurality of data samples comprises a point cloud [He: ¶ [0121]: For example, video based point cloud compression (VPCC) projects point cloud data to geometry, texture, occupancy map and patch components; each video component data may be encoded by AVC, HEVC or VVC encoder, and point cloud data can be reconstructed by combining all or partial decoded video component data and the timed metadata].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the processing of Agarwal with the PCC computing of He in order to provide improved computational speed via various computing methods available.
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 JONATHAN R MESSMORE whose telephone number is (571)272-2773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST/EDT.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/JONATHAN R MESSMORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights