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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claims of Patent No. US 11671613 B2 (“Pat 613”) do not explicitly disclose “determining, based on a second flag signaled in the bitstream, whether information of a virtual boundary is signaled in a sequence parameter set (SPS); and controlling in-loop filtering operations based on whether the information of the virtual boundary is signaled in the SPS."
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 of Pat 613 disclose determining, according to the received bitstream, whether a virtual boundary is signaled at a sequence level for the set of pictures; and controlling in-loop filtering operations based on whether the virtual boundary is signaled at the sequence level.
Applicant argues that claims of Patent No. US 12192504 B2 (“Pat 504”) do not explicitly disclose “determining, based on a second flag signaled in the bitstream, whether information of a virtual boundary is signaled in a sequence parameter set (SPS); and controlling in-loop filtering operations based on whether the information of the virtual boundary is signaled in the SPS."
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 of Pat 504 discloses determining, based on a second flag signaled in the bitstream, whether information of virtual boundaries is signaled in a sequence parameter set (SPS). Claim 1 of Pat 613 disclose determining, according to the received bitstream, whether a virtual boundary is signaled at a sequence level for the set of pictures; and controlling in-loop filtering operations based on whether the virtual boundary is signaled at the sequence level.
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, 6, 12, 17-18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5, 7, 10-11 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,671,613 B2 (“Pat 613”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Consider application claim 1, claim 1 of Pat 613 discloses a video decoding method, comprising: receiving a bitstream associated with a set of pictures; determining, according to the received bitstream, whether a resolution of a first picture in the set of pictures is different from a resolution of a reference picture associated with the first picture; in response to the resolution of the first picture being different from the resolution of the reference picture associated with the first picture, determining that wrap-around motion compensation is disabled for the first picture; determining, according to the received bitstream, whether a virtual boundary is signaled at a sequence level for the set of pictures; and controlling in-loop filtering operations based on whether the virtual boundary is signaled at the sequence level; wherein the controlling of the in-loop filtering operations comprises: in response to the virtual boundary being signaled at the sequence level, determining a position of the virtual boundary for the set of pictures, the position being bounded by a range signaled in the received bitstream; and disabling in-loop filtering operations across the virtual boundary, wherein the range by which the position is bounded comprises at least one of a vertical range or a horizontal range, the vertical range is less than or equal to a first value associated with a maximum width of each picture of the set of pictures, the maximum width being signaled in the received bitstream, and the horizontal range is less than or equal to a second value associated with a maximum height of each picture of the set of pictures, the maximum height being signaled in the received bitstream.
Claim 7 of Pat 613 discloses a flag indicating whether the resolution of the first picture is allowed to be changed; and wherein the method further comprises: in response to the flag indicating the resolution of the first picture being allowed to be changed, determining that the virtual boundary is not signaled at the sequence level.
Claims 1 and 7 of Pat 613 disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 6, claim 1 of Pat 613 discloses a video decoding method, comprising: receiving a bitstream associated with a set of pictures; determining, according to the received bitstream, whether a resolution of a first picture in the set of pictures is different from a resolution of a reference picture associated with the first picture; in response to the resolution of the first picture being different from the resolution of the reference picture associated with the first picture, determining that wrap-around motion compensation is disabled for the first picture; determining, according to the received bitstream, whether a virtual boundary is signaled at a sequence level for the set of pictures; and controlling in-loop filtering operations based on whether the virtual boundary is signaled at the sequence level; wherein the controlling of the in-loop filtering operations comprises: in response to the virtual boundary being signaled at the sequence level, determining a position of the virtual boundary for the set of pictures, the position being bounded by a range signaled in the received bitstream; and disabling in-loop filtering operations across the virtual boundary, wherein the range by which the position is bounded comprises at least one of a vertical range or a horizontal range, the vertical range is less than or equal to a first value associated with a maximum width of each picture of the set of pictures, the maximum width being signaled in the received bitstream, and the horizontal range is less than or equal to a second value associated with a maximum height of each picture of the set of pictures, the maximum height being signaled in the received bitstream.
Claim 1 of Pat 613 discloses all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 12, claim 10 of Pat 613 discloses a video encoding method, comprising: setting a virtual boundary for a set of pictures; disabling in-loop filtering operations across the virtual boundary; determining whether a resolution of a first picture in the set of pictures is different from a resolution of a reference picture associated with the first picture; in response to the resolution of the first picture being different from the resolution of the reference picture associated with the first picture, disabling wrap-around motion compensation for the first picture; and signaling, in a bitstream, a maximum value indicative of a range by which a position of the virtual boundary is bounded, wherein the range comprises at least one of a vertical range or a horizontal range, and the maximum value comprises at least one of a maximum width of each picture of the set of pictures or a maximum height of each picture of the set of pictures, wherein: the vertical range is less than or equal to a first value associated with the maximum width, and the horizontal range is less than or equal to a second value associated with the maximum height.
Claim 7 of Pat 613 discloses a flag indicating whether the resolution of the first picture is allowed to be changed; and wherein the method further comprises: in response to the flag indicating the resolution of the first picture being allowed to be changed, determining that the virtual boundary is not signaled at the sequence level.
Claims 12 and 7 of Pat 613 disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 17, claim 10 of Pat 613 discloses a video encoding method, comprising: setting a virtual boundary for a set of pictures; disabling in-loop filtering operations across the virtual boundary; determining whether a resolution of a first picture in the set of pictures is different from a resolution of a reference picture associated with the first picture; in response to the resolution of the first picture being different from the resolution of the reference picture associated with the first picture, disabling wrap-around motion compensation for the first picture; and signaling, in a bitstream, a maximum value indicative of a range by which a position of the virtual boundary is bounded, wherein the range comprises at least one of a vertical range or a horizontal range, and the maximum value comprises at least one of a maximum width of each picture of the set of pictures or a maximum height of each picture of the set of pictures, wherein: the vertical range is less than or equal to a first value associated with the maximum width, and the horizontal range is less than or equal to a second value associated with the maximum height.
Claim 10 of Pat 613 discloses all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 18, claim 11 of Pat 613 discloses the first value is equal to Ceil(pic_width_max_in_luma_samples÷8)−1 and the second value is equal to Ceil(pic_height_max_in_luma_samples÷8)−1, and wherein pic_width_max_in_luma_samples represents the maximum width, in units of luma samples, of each picture of the set of pictures, and pic_height_max_in_luma_samples represents the maximum height, in units of luma samples, of each picture of the set of pictures.
Claim 11 of Pat 613 discloses all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 20, claim 5 of Pat 613 discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a bitstream of a set of pictures for processing according to a method comprising: determining, according to the bitstream, whether a resolution of a first picture in the set of pictures is different from a resolution of a reference picture associated with the first picture; in response to the resolution of the first picture being different from the resolution of the reference picture associated with the first picture, determining that wrap-around motion compensation is disabled for the first picture; determining whether the bitstream signals a virtual boundary at a sequence level for the set of pictures; in response to the bitstream signaling the virtual boundary at the sequence level, determining a position of the virtual boundary for the set of pictures, the position being bounded by a range signaled in the bitstream; and disabling in-loop filtering operations across the virtual boundary, wherein the range signaled in the bitstream comprises at least one of a vertical range or a horizontal range, the vertical range is less than or equal to a first value associated with a maximum width of each picture of the set of pictures, the maximum width being signaled in the bitstream, and the horizontal range is less than or equal to a second value associated with a maximum height of each picture of the set of pictures, the maximum height being signaled in the bitstream.
Claim 7 of Pat 613 discloses a flag indicating whether the resolution of the first picture is allowed to be changed; and wherein the method further comprises: in response to the flag indicating the resolution of the first picture being allowed to be changed, determining that the virtual boundary is not signaled at the sequence level.
Claims 5 and 7 of Pat 613 disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Claims 2-4, 7-11, 13-15, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5, 7, 10-11 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,671,613 B2 (“Pat 613”) in view of Chen et al. (US 12,192,504 B2).
Consider application claim 2, claims of Pat 613 disclose all the limitations in application claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose when the value of the first flag is equal to 1, the value of the second flag is equal to 0.
Chen teaches when the value of the first flag is equal to 1, the value of the second flag is equal to 0 (claim 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chen into the method in Pat 613 because such incorporation would improve the visual quality of 360-video coded in the ERP projection format.
Consider application claim 3, Chen teaches the first flag and second flag are signaled in the SPS (claim 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chen into the method in Pat 613 because such incorporation would improve the visual quality of 360-video coded in the ERP projection format.
Consider application claim 4, claim 1 of Pat 613 discloses a video decoding method, comprising: receiving a bitstream associated with a set of pictures; determining, according to the received bitstream, whether a resolution of a first picture in the set of pictures is different from a resolution of a reference picture associated with the first picture; in response to the resolution of the first picture being different from the resolution of the reference picture associated with the first picture, determining that wrap-around motion compensation is disabled for the first picture; determining, according to the received bitstream, whether a virtual boundary is signaled at a sequence level for the set of pictures; and controlling in-loop filtering operations based on whether the virtual boundary is signaled at the sequence level; wherein the controlling of the in-loop filtering operations comprises: in response to the virtual boundary being signaled at the sequence level, determining a position of the virtual boundary for the set of pictures, the position being bounded by a range signaled in the received bitstream; and disabling in-loop filtering operations across the virtual boundary, wherein the range by which the position is bounded comprises at least one of a vertical range or a horizontal range, the vertical range is less than or equal to a first value associated with a maximum width of each picture of the set of pictures, the maximum width being signaled in the received bitstream, and the horizontal range is less than or equal to a second value associated with a maximum height of each picture of the set of pictures, the maximum height being signaled in the received bitstream.
Claim 1 of Pat 613 discloses all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 7, Chen teaches determining the range based on a first parameter signaled in the bitstream; and determining the position of the virtual boundary based on a second parameter signaled in the bitstream (claim 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chen into the method in Pat 613 because such incorporation would improve the visual quality of 360-video coded in the ERP projection format.
Consider application claim 8, claim 2 of Pat 613 discloses the first value is equal to Ceil(pic_width_max_in_luma_samples÷8)−1 and the second value is equal to Ceil(pic_height_max_in_luma_samples÷8)−1, and wherein pic_width_max_in_luma_samples represents the maximum width, in units of luma samples, of each picture of the set of pictures, and pic_height_max_in_luma_samples represents the maximum height, in units of luma samples, of each picture of the set of pictures.
Claim 2 of Pat 613 discloses all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 9, claim 2 of Pat 613 discloses the first value is equal to Ceil(pic_width_max_in_luma_samples÷8)−1 and the second value is equal to Ceil(pic_height_max_in_luma_samples÷8)−1, and wherein pic_width_max_in_luma_samples represents the maximum width, in units of luma samples, of each picture of the set of pictures, and pic_height_max_in_luma_samples represents the maximum height, in units of luma samples, of each picture of the set of pictures.
Claim 2 of Pat 613 discloses all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 10, Chen teaches the first parameter and second parameter are signaled in the SPS (claim 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chen into the method in Pat 613 because such incorporation would improve the visual quality of 360-video coded in the ERP projection format.
Consider application claim 11, Chen teaches determining, based on a first parameter signaled in the bitstream, a maximum width or height of each picture of the video sequence; determining, based on a second parameter signaled in a picture parameter set (PPS) of the bitstream, a width or height of a decoded picture referring to the PPS, wherein when the first flag has a value indicating that the picture resolution is not allowed to be changed within the video sequence, the second parameter has a value equal to a value of the first parameter (claim 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chen into the method in Pat 613 because such incorporation would improve the visual quality of 360-video coded in the ERP projection format.
Consider application claim 13, Chen teaches when the value of the first flag is equal to 1, the value of the second flag is equal to 0 (claim 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chen into the method in Pat 613 because such incorporation would improve the visual quality of 360-video coded in the ERP projection format.
Consider application claim 14, Chen teaches encoding the first flag and second flag into the SPS (claim 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chen into the method in Pat 613 because such incorporation would improve the visual quality of 360-video coded in the ERP projection format.
Consider application claim 15, Chen teaches the encoded second flag has a value indicating that the information of virtual boundary is signaled in the bitstream, and the encoding comprises: encoding the information of virtual boundary into the SPS (claim 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chen into the method in Pat 613 because such incorporation would improve the visual quality of 360-video coded in the ERP projection format.
Consider application claim 19, Chen teaches determining, based on a first parameter signaled in the bitstream, a maximum width or height of each picture of the video sequence; determining, based on a second parameter signaled in a picture parameter set (PPS) of the bitstream, a width or height of a decoded picture referring to the PPS, wherein when the first flag has a value indicating that the picture resolution is not allowed to be changed within the video sequence, the second parameter has a value equal to a value of the first parameter (claim 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chen into the method in Pat 613 because such incorporation would improve the visual quality of 360-video coded in the ERP projection format.
Claims 1-4, 6-15, 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15, 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,192,504 B2 (“Pat 504”) in view of Chen et al. (US 11,671,613 B2).
Consider application claim 1, claim 1 of Pat 504 discloses a method of decoding a bitstream to output one or more pictures for a video stream, the method comprising: receiving a bitstream associated with a video sequence; and decoding, using coded information of the bitstream, the video sequence, wherein the decoding comprises: determining, according to the bitstream, whether a resolution of a first picture in the video sequence is different from a resolution of a reference picture associated with the first picture; in response to the resolution of the first picture being different from the resolution of the reference picture associated with the first picture, determining that wrap-around motion compensation is disabled for the first picture; determining, based on a first flag signaled in the bitstream, whether a picture resolution is allowed to be changed within the video sequence; and determining, based on a second flag signaled in the bitstream, whether information of virtual boundaries is signaled in a sequence parameter set (SPS), wherein when the first flag has a value indicating that the picture resolution is allowed to be changed within the video sequence, the second flag has a value indicating that the information of virtual boundaries is not signaled in the SPS.
However, claims of Pat 504 do not explicitly disclose controlling in-loop filtering operations based on whether the information of the virtual boundary is signaled in the SPS, wherein the controlling of the in-loop filtering operations comprises: in response to the information of the virtual boundary being signaled in the SPS, determining a position of the virtual boundary for the video sequence, the position being bounded by a range signaled in the received bitstream, and wherein the range comprises at least one of a vertical range or a horizontal range, the vertical range being less than or equal to a maximum width of pictures allowed for the video sequence, and the horizontal range being less than or equal to a maximum height of pictures allowed for the video sequence.
Chen teaches controlling in-loop filtering operations based on whether the information of the virtual boundary is signaled in the SPS, wherein the controlling of the in-loop filtering operations comprises: in response to the information of the virtual boundary being signaled in the SPS, determining a position of the virtual boundary for the video sequence, the position being bounded by a range signaled in the received bitstream, wherein the range comprises at least one of a vertical range or a horizontal range, the vertical range being less than or equal to a maximum width of pictures allowed for the video sequence, and the horizontal range being less than or equal to a maximum height of pictures allowed for the video sequence (claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chen into the method in Pat 504 because such incorporation would improve the visual quality of 360-video coded in the ERP projection format.
Consider application claim 2, claim 2 of Pat 504 discloses when the value of the first flag is equal to 1, the value of the second flag is equal to 0.
Claim 2 of Pat 504 discloses all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 3, claim 3 of Pat 504 discloses the first flag and second flag are signaled in the SPS.
Claim 3 of Pat 504 discloses all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 4, claim 4 of Pat 504 discloses determining, based on the second flag, whether the information of virtual boundaries is signaled in the SPS. Claim 4 of Pat 504 discloses all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 6, Chen teaches the range by which the position is bounded comprises at least one of a vertical range or a horizontal range, the vertical range is less than or equal to a maximum width allowed for the set of pictures, the maximum width being signaled in the received stream, and the horizontal range is less than or equal to a maximum height allowed for the set of pictures, the maximum height being signaled in the received bitstream (claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chen into the method in Pat 504 because such incorporation would improve the visual quality of 360-video coded in the ERP projection format.
Consider application claim 7, claim 5 of Pat 504 discloses the decoding comprises: determining, based on a first parameter signaled in the bitstream, a maximum width or height of each picture of the video sequence; and determining, based on a second parameter signaled in the bitstream, a location of a virtual boundary for the video sequence, wherein a value of the second parameter is bounded by a range determined by a value of the first parameter.
Claim 5 of Pat 504 discloses all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 8, claim 6 of Pat 504 discloses the range is determined by a smallest integer that is greater than or equal to a quotient of the value of the first parameter divided by 8.
Claim 6 of Pat 504 discloses all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 9, claim 7 of Pat 504 discloses the value of the first parameter is in units of luma samples.
Claim 7 of Pat 504 discloses all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 10, claim 8 of Pat 504 discloses the first parameter and third second parameter are signaled in the SPS.
Claim 8 of Pat 504 discloses all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 11, claim 9 of Pat 504 discloses determining, based on a first parameter signaled in the bitstream, a maximum width or height of each picture of the video sequence; determining, based on a second parameter signaled in a picture parameter set (PPS) of the bitstream, a width or height of a decoded picture referring to the PPS, wherein when the first flag has a value indicating that the picture resolution is not allowed to be changed within the video sequence, the second parameter has a value equal to a value of the first parameter.
Claim 9 of Pat 504 discloses all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 12, claim 10 of Pat 504 discloses a method of encoding a video sequence into a bitstream, the method comprising: receiving a video sequence; encoding one or more pictures of the video sequence; and generating a bitstream, wherein the encoding comprises: determining whether a resolution of a first picture in the video sequence is different from a resolution of a reference picture associated with the first picture; in response to the resolution of the first picture being different from the resolution of the reference picture associated with the first picture, disabling wrap-around motion compensation for the first picture; encoding a first flag indicating whether a picture resolution is allowed to be changed within the video sequence; encoding, based on a value of the first flag, a second flag indicating whether information of virtual boundaries is signaled in a sequence parameter set (SPS), wherein when the value of the first flag indicating that the picture resolution is allowed to be changed within the video sequence, the encoded second flag has a value indicating that the information of virtual boundaries is not signaled in the SPS.
However, claims of Pat 504 do not explicitly disclose controlling in-loop filtering operations based on whether the information of the virtual boundary is signaled in the SPS, wherein the controlling of the in-loop filtering operations comprises: in response to the information of the virtual boundary being signaled in the SPS, determining a position of the virtual boundary for the video sequence, the position being bounded by a range signaled in the received bitstream, and disabling the in-loop filtering operations across the virtual boundary.
Chen teaches controlling in-loop filtering operations based on whether the information of the virtual boundary is signaled in the SPS, wherein the controlling of the in-loop filtering operations comprises: in response to the information of the virtual boundary being signaled in the SPS, determining a position of the virtual boundary for the video sequence, the position being bounded by a range signaled in the received bitstream, and disabling the in-loop filtering operations across the virtual boundary (claim 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chen into the method in Pat 504 because such incorporation would improve the visual quality of 360-video coded in the ERP projection format.
Consider application claim 13, claim 11 of Pat 504 discloses when the value of the first flag is equal to 1, the value of the second flag is equal to 0.
Claim 11 of Pat 504 discloses all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 14, claim 12 of Pat 504 discloses the encoding comprises: encoding the first flag and second flag into the SPS.
Claim 12 of Pat 504 discloses all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 15, claim 13 of Pat 504 discloses the encoded second flag has a value indicating that the information of virtual boundaries is signaled in the bitstream, and the encoding comprises: encoding the information of virtual boundaries into the SPS.
Claim 13 of Pat 504 discloses all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 17, claim 14 of Pat 504 discloses the encoding comprises: encoding a first parameter indicating a maximum width or height of each picture of the video sequence; and encoding a second parameter indicating a location of a virtual boundary for the video sequence, wherein a value of the second parameter is bounded by a range determined by a value of the first parameter.
Claim 14 of Pat 504 discloses all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 18, claim 15 of Pat 504 discloses determining the range based on a smallest integer that is greater than or equal to a quotient of the value of the first parameter divided by 8.
Claim 15 of Pat 504 discloses all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 19, claim 18 of Pat 504 discloses encoding a first parameter indicating a maximum width or height of each picture of the video sequence; encoding a second parameter signaled in a picture parameter set (PPS) of the bitstream, the second parameter indicating a width or height of an encoded picture referring to the PPS, wherein when the first flag has a value indicating that the picture resolution is not allowed to be changed within the video sequence, the second parameter has a value equal to a value of the first parameter.
Claim 18 of Pat 504 discloses all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 20, claim 19 of Pat 504 discloses a method of storing a bitstream associated with a video sequence, the method comprising: determining whether a resolution of a first picture in the video sequence is different from a resolution of a reference picture associated with the first picture; generating the bitstream based on the determining, wherein when the resolution of the first picture is different from the resolution of the reference picture associated with the first picture, wrap-around motion compensation is disabled for the first picture; encoding, into the bitstream, a first flag indicating whether a picture resolution is allowed to be changed within the video sequence; encoding, into the bitstream, a second flag indicating whether information of virtual boundaries is signaled in a sequence parameter set (SPS) that the video sequence refers to, wherein when a value of the first flag indicates that the picture resolution is allowed to be changed within the video sequence, the second flag has a value indicating that the information of virtual boundaries is not signaled in the SPS; and storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
However, claims of Pat 504 do not explicitly disclose controlling in-loop filtering operations based on whether the information of the virtual boundary is signaled in the SPS, wherein the controlling of the in-loop filtering operations comprises: in response to the information of the virtual boundary being signaled in the SPS, determining a position of the virtual boundary for the video sequence, the position being bounded by a range signaled in the received bitstream, and disabling the in-loop filtering operations across the virtual boundary.
Chen teaches controlling in-loop filtering operations based on whether the information of the virtual boundary is signaled in the SPS, wherein the controlling of the in-loop filtering operations comprises: in response to the information of the virtual boundary being signaled in the SPS, determining a position of the virtual boundary for the video sequence, the position being bounded by a range signaled in the received bitstream, and disabling the in-loop filtering operations across the virtual boundary (claim 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chen into the method in Pat 504 because such incorporation would improve the visual quality of 360-video coded in the ERP projection format.
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 TAT CHI CHIO whose telephone number is (571)272-9563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-5pm.
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 J ATALA can be reached at 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 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.
/TAT C CHIO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights