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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-15, 18-20, 22-24, 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2013116415 A1 HE YONG et al. (hereafter He), and further in view of US 20120075436 A1 CHEN; YING et al. (hereafter Chen).
Regarding claim 1, He discloses A method of coding video information, the method comprising: determining whether or not a reference layer for an enhancement layer is included in a bitstream ([248], [262]-[263], parsing bitstream (e.g. NAL) would determine there are any indication of the availability of a reference layer for other layers in the bitstream); determining whether one or more parameters for a decoded picture buffer are signaled in the bitstream based upon determining whether the reference layer for the enhancement layer is included in the bitstream ([86], [113], [261], the reference picture setting in parameter set syntax in slice header is the claimed parameter is the claimed parameter that can be extracted from reference layer after the reference layer is obtained); and coding the video information based at least in part on the values of the one or more parameters for the decoded picture buffer ([142], after decoding slice header that includes parameter sets decoding pictures in bitstream occurs).
He fails to disclose inferring values of the one or more parameters based upon a determination that the reference layer for the enhancement layer is not included in the bitstream and that the one or more parameters are not signaled in the bitstream.
However, Chen teaches inferring values of the one or more parameters based upon a determination that the reference layer for the enhancement layer is not included in the bitstream ([76], [169], [223], [230], the indication of which layers are provided in the bitstream is the inferring value that can indicate a non existing or discarded base layer as reference layer for enhancement layer) and that the one or more parameters are not signaled in the bitstream ([47], [169], sequence parameter set (SPS) in bitstream to describes whether the enhancement layers being predicted from the base layer, meaning base layer as reference layer for enhancement layer is the claimed parameter; as base layer discarded, correspondent SPS in slice header does not exist).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of coding video information disclosed by He include the teaching in the same field of endeavors of Chen, in order to provide techniques for supporting stereo video data used to produce a three-dimensional (3D) effect, as identified by Chen.
Regarding claims 2, 12, 22, 27, He discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the reference layer is coded according to a non-HEVC (High Efficiency Video Coding) codec, and wherein the enhancement layer is coded according to a HEVC codec ([87], [119]).
Regarding claims 3, 13, 23, 28, Chen teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the reference layer is coded according to an Advanced Video Coding (AVC) codec ([30]).
Regarding claims 4, 14, 24, 29, He discloses The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether or not the reference layer for the enhancement layer is included in the bitstream comprises determining whether or not the reference layer is included in the bitstream based upon a value included in one of a video parameter set, a sequence parameter set, a picture parameter set, or an adaptation parameter set ([101]).
Regarding claims 5, 15, He discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more parameters comprise a parameter which signals a maximum size of the decoded picture buffer for a highest temporal sub-layer to be decoded ([234]-[236]).
Regarding claims 8, 18, He discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more parameters comprise a parameter which signals a maximum reordering of output pictures ([155]).
Regarding claims 9, 19, Chen teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising generating one or more syntax elements in the bitstream, the one or more syntax elements comprising the values of the one or more parameters, wherein coding the video information comprises encoding the video information ([47], [83]).
Regarding claims 10, 20, Chen teaches The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the one or more parameters are signaled in the bitstream comprises decoding one or more syntax elements from the bitstream and wherein coding video information comprises decoding the video information (Fig.1, [60]).
Regarding claims 11, 21, 26, see the rejection for claim 1.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 16, 17, 25, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He, in view of Chen, and further in view of US 20140092964 A1 Ugur; Kemal et al. (hereafter Ugur).
Regarding claims 6, 16, Ugur teaches The method of claim 5, further comprising: determining, when the reference layer for the enhancement layer is not included in the bitstream, the parameter which signals the maximum size of the decoded picture buffer for the highest temporal sub-layer to be decoded to have a value of 0 ([221], [242]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having all the references He, Chen and Ugur before him/her, to modify the method of coding video information disclosed by He include the teaching in the same field of endeavors of Chen and Ugur, in order to provide techniques for supporting stereo video data used to produce a three-dimensional (3D) effect, as identified by Chen, and a decoder where enhancement layer is coded with Scalable HEVC coding, while base layer is coded with H.264/AVC coding, as identified by Ugur.
Regarding claims 7, 17, Ugur teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more parameters comprise a parameter which signals a maximum latency (219]).
Regarding claims 25, 30, see the rejections for claims 5, 7, 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20160241835 A1, CN 103650502 A, US 20150264377 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY Y. LI whose telephone number is (571)270-3671. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday (8:30 AM- 4:30 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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
/TRACY Y. LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487