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 . 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 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. There are a total of 20 claims and claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of foreign priority papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 01/28/2025, 04/24/2025 and 07/22/2025 (2 IDSs) were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings of Figs. 3B and 3C are objected to because the letters inside the circles are not legible. 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, 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.
Claim 20 is 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.
Claim 20 recites “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus, wherein the method comprises:”. Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory medium storing a bitstream of a video wherein clauses that appear to describe how the bitstream is generated. These elements or steps are not performed by an intended computer, and the bitstream is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for storing the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the generation of the bitstream and intended computer system. Therefore, those claim elements are not given patentable weight. Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. See MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a storage for information or data that is not meant for being executed, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. The Examiner suggests that the claim be amended so that it is directed to a functional relationship. For example, in this particular case, the claim should instead be recited as “A method of storing a bitstream of a video into a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, wherein the bitstream is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus, wherein the method comprises:”.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,407,812 B2 and 11,611,780 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 12,407,812 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 1 between the instant application and the patent.
19010549 (Instant Application)
12,407,812 B2 (Patent)
Claim 1
Claim 1
1
A method of processing video data, comprising:
A method of processing video data, comprising:
2
determining, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, whether a first syntax element and a second syntax element are included in the bitstream; and
determining, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, a first syntax element and a second syntax element; and
3
performing the conversion based on the determining, wherein the first syntax element and the second syntax element have an equivalent functionality,
performing the conversion based on the determining, wherein the first syntax element and the second syntax element have an equivalent functionality,
4
wherein the first syntax element is included at a first level in the video unit in the bitstream, and the second syntax element is included at a second level in the video unit different from the first level, and
wherein the first syntax element is included at a first level in the video unit in the bitstream, and the second syntax element is included at a second level in the video unit different from the first level,
5
wherein the first level is a picture header and the second level is a slice header, a sequence parameter set or a picture parameter set, or
wherein the first level is a picture header and the second level is a slice header, a sequence parameter set or a picture parameter set, or
6
wherein the first level is a slice header and the second level is a sequence parameter set or a picture parameter set.
wherein the first level is a slice header and the second level is a sequence parameter set or a picture parameter set,
7
wherein the first syntax element specifying whether a use of an explicit scaling list is enabled is included in the slice header, and
8
the second syntax element specifying whether the use of the explicit scaling list is enabled is included in the sequence parameter set, and
9
wherein the first syntax element is not included in the slice header when the second syntax element is not included in the sequence parameter set.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that all the limitations of the instant application are directly or indirectly recited in the patent. The instant application claim 1 is a broader version of the patent claim 1 since the patent claim has additional limitations therein. Therefore, the instant application claim 1 as a whole is not patentably distinct from the patent claim 1.
Claims 2-11 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over combination of claims 1-10 of Patent 12,407,812 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 12 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of Patent 12,407,812 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 12 between the instant application and the patent.
19010549 (Instant Application)
12,407,812 B2 (Patent)
Claim 12
Claim 11
1
An apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to:
An apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to:
2
determine, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, whether a first syntax element and a second syntax element are included in the bitstream; and
determine, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, a first syntax element and a second syntax element; and
3
perform the conversion based on the determining, wherein the first syntax element and the second syntax element have an equivalent functionality,
perform the conversion based on the determining, wherein the first syntax element and the second syntax element have an equivalent functionality,
4
wherein the first syntax element is included at a first level in the video unit in the bitstream, and the second syntax element is included at a second level in the video unit different from the first level, and
wherein the first syntax element is included at a first level in the video unit in the bitstream, and the second syntax element is included at a second level in the video unit different from the first level,
5
wherein the first level is a picture header and the second level is a slice header, a sequence parameter set or a picture parameter set, or
wherein the first level is a picture header and the second level is a slice header, a sequence parameter set or a picture parameter set, or
6
wherein the first level is a slice header and the second level is a sequence parameter set or a picture parameter set.
wherein the first level is a slice header and the second level is a sequence parameter set or a picture parameter set,
7
wherein the first syntax element specifying whether a use of an explicit scaling list is enabled is included in the slice header, and
8
the second syntax element specifying whether the use of the explicit scaling list is enabled is included in the sequence parameter set, and
9
wherein the first syntax element is not included in the slice header when the second syntax element is not included in the sequence parameter set.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that all the limitations of the instant application are directly or indirectly recited in the patent. The instant application claim 12 is a broader version of the patent claim 11 since the patent claim has additional limitations therein. Therefore, the instant application claim 12 as a whole is not patentably distinct from the patent claim 11.
Claims 13-18 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over combination of claims 11-12, 17-18 of Patent 12,407,812 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 19 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of Patent 12,407,812 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 19 between the instant application and the patent.
19010549 (Instant Application)
12,407,812 B2 (Patent)
Claim 19
Claim 13
1
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to:
2
determine, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, whether a first syntax element and a second syntax element are included in the bitstream; and
determine, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, a first syntax element and a second syntax element;
3
perform the conversion based on the determining, wherein the first syntax element and the second syntax element have an equivalent functionality,
perform the conversion based on the determining, wherein the first syntax element and the second syntax element have an equivalent functionality,
4
wherein the first syntax element is included at a first level in the video unit in the bitstream, and the second syntax element is included at a second level in the video unit different from the first level,
wherein the first syntax element is included at a first level in the video unit in the bitstream, and the second syntax element is included at a second level in the video unit different from the first level,
5
wherein the first level is a picture header and the second level is a slice header, a sequence parameter set or a picture parameter set, or
wherein the first level is a picture header and the second level is a slice header, a sequence parameter set or a picture parameter set, or
6
wherein the first level is a slice header and the second level is a sequence parameter set or a picture parameter set.
wherein the first level is a slice header and the second level is a sequence parameter set or a picture parameter set,
7
wherein the first syntax element specifying whether a use of an explicit scaling list is enabled is included in the slice header, and
8
the second syntax element specifying whether the use of the explicit scaling list is enabled is included in the sequence parameter set, and
9
wherein the first syntax element is not included in the slice header when the second syntax element is not included in the sequence parameter set.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that all the limitations of the instant application are directly or indirectly recited in the patent. The instant application claim 19 is a broader version of the patent claim 13 since the patent claim has additional limitations therein. Therefore, the instant application claim 19 as a whole is not patentably distinct from the patent claim 13.
Claim 20 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of Patent 12,407,812 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 20 between the instant application and the patent.
19010549 (Instant Application)
12,407,812 B2 (Patent)
Claim 20
Claim 15
1
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus, wherein the method comprises:
A method for storing a bitstream of a video, comprising:
2
determining, for a video unit of the video, whether a first syntax element and a second syntax element are included in the bitstream; and
determining, for a video unit of the video, a first syntax element and a second syntax element;
3
generating the bitstream based on the determining,
generating the bitstream based on the determining; and storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium,
4
wherein the first syntax element and the second syntax element have an equivalent functionality,
wherein the first syntax element and the second syntax element have an equivalent functionality,
5
wherein the first syntax element is included at a first level in the video unit in the bitstream, and the second syntax element is included at a second level in the video unit different from the first level,
wherein the first syntax element is included at a first level in the video unit in the bitstream, and the second syntax element is included at a second level in the video unit different from the first level,
6
wherein the first level is a picture header and the second level is a slice header, a sequence parameter set or a picture parameter set, or
wherein the first level is a picture header and the second level is a slice header, a sequence parameter set or a picture parameter set, or
7
wherein the first level is a slice header and the second level is a sequence parameter set or a picture parameter set.
wherein the first level is a slice header and the second level is a sequence parameter set or a picture parameter set,
8
wherein the first syntax element specifying whether a use of an explicit scaling list is enabled is included in the slice header, and
9
the second syntax element specifying whether the use of the explicit scaling list is enabled is included in the sequence parameter set, and
10
wherein the first syntax element is not included in the slice header when the second syntax element is not included in the sequence parameter set.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that all the limitations of the instant application are directly or indirectly recited in the patent. The instant application claim 20 is a broader version of the patent claim 15 since the patent claim has additional limitations therein. Therefore, the instant application claim 20 as a whole is not patentably distinct from the patent claim 15.
Claims 1-20 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over combination of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,611,780 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because the mapping of the instant application claims can be similarly done to the patent claims as shown in the above table.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 10-12, 15, 19-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van der Auwera et al. (US PGPub 2017/0064339 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Van der Auwera et al. teach a method of processing video data (Figs. 2-3 show video processing), comprising:
determining, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video (Figs. 2-3 show the conversion between video block and a video bitstream), whether a first syntax element (Table 6 shows a first syntax element deblocking_filter_in_aps_enabled_flag) and a second syntax element are included in the bitstream (Table 3 shows a second syntax element adaptive_loop_filter_enabled_flag); and
performing the conversion based on the determining (Figs. 2-3 show the conversion),
wherein the first syntax element and the second syntax element have an equivalent functionality (Tables 3, 6; Both the syntaxes are related to filter enabling flag which are equivalent functionality),
wherein the first syntax element is included at a first level in the video unit in the bitstream (Table 6 shows the first syntax element deblocking_filter_in_aps_enabled_flag in a slice header which is a first level), and the second syntax element is included at a second level in the video unit different from the first level (Table 3 shows the second syntax element adaptive_loop_filter_enabled_flag in a sequence parameter set which is a second level different from the first level), and
wherein the first level is a picture header and the second level is a slice header, a sequence parameter set or a picture parameter set, or wherein the first level is a slice header and the second level is a sequence parameter set or a picture parameter set (As shown in Tables 3, 6, the first level is a slice header and the second level is a sequence parameter set).
Regarding claim 4, Van der Auwera et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein in a case that the first syntax element specifies whether adaptive loop filter (ALF) is enabled (Table 9 shows adaptive_loop_filter_enabled_flag is defined in slice header) and the second syntax element specifies whether the ALF is enabled (Table 7 shows adaptive_loop_filter_enabled_flag is defined in sequence parameter set), when the first syntax element and the second syntax element are included in the bitstream (Since seq_parameter_set_rbsp () and slice_header () are syntax elements, they are included in the bitstream as described in [0080], L1-3), the first syntax element is included in the slice header (Table 9 shows adaptive_loop_filter_enabled_flag is defined in slice header), and the second syntax element is included in the sequence parameter set (Table 7 shows adaptive_loop_filter_enabled_flag is defined in sequence parameter set), and
wherein the first syntax element is not included in the slice header in a case that the second syntax element is not included in the sequence parameter set ([0007], L15-19; it states “when the first syntax element indicates that deblocking filter parameters are not present in both the picture layer parameter set and the slice header, determine that the second syntax element is not present in the slice header to be decoded”. Here one of the syntax elements can be defined in sequence parameter set instead of picture layer parameter set as described in [0075], L5-7).
Regarding claim 10, Van der Auwera et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the video unit into the bitstream (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Van der Auwera et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the video unit from the bitstream (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Van der Auwera et al. teach an apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon ([0037]), wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to:
determine, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video (Figs. 2-3 show the conversion between video block and a video bitstream), whether a first syntax element (Table 6 shows a first syntax element deblocking_filter_in_aps_enabled_flag) and a second syntax element (Table 3 shows a second syntax element adaptive_loop_filter_enabled_flag) are included in the bitstream (Since seq_parameter_set_rbsp () and slice_header () are syntax elements, they are included in the bitstream as described in [0080], L1-3); and
perform the conversion based on the determining (Figs. 2-3 show the conversion),
wherein the first syntax element and the second syntax element have an equivalent functionality (Tables 3, 6; Both the syntaxes are related to filter enabling flag which are equivalent functionality),
wherein the first syntax element is included at a first level in the video unit in the bitstream (Table 6 shows the first syntax element deblocking_filter_in_aps_enabled_flag in a slice header which is a first level), and the second syntax element is included at a second level in the video unit different from the first level (Table 3 shows the second syntax element adaptive_loop_filter_enabled_flag in a sequence parameter set which is a second level different from the first level), and
wherein the first level is a picture header and the second level is a slice header, a sequence parameter set or a picture parameter set, or wherein the first level is a slice header and the second level is a sequence parameter set or a picture parameter set (As shown in Tables 3, 6, the first level is a slice header and the second level is a sequence parameter set).
Regarding claim 15, Van der Auwera et al. teach the apparatus of claim 12, wherein in a case that the first syntax element specifies whether adaptive loop filter (ALF) is enabled (Table 9 shows adaptive_loop_filter_enabled_flag is defined in slice header) and the second syntax element specifies whether the ALF is enabled (Table 7 shows adaptive_loop_filter_enabled_flag is defined in sequence parameter set), when the first syntax element and the second syntax element are included in the bitstream (Since seq_parameter_set_rbsp () and slice_header () are syntax elements, they are included in the bitstream as described in [0080], L1-3), the first syntax element is included in the slice header (Table 9 shows adaptive_loop_filter_enabled_flag is defined in slice header), and the second syntax element is included in the sequence parameter set (Table 7 shows adaptive_loop_filter_enabled_flag is defined in sequence parameter set), and
wherein the first syntax element is not included in the slice header in a case that the second syntax element is not included in the sequence parameter set ([0007], L15-19; it states “when the first syntax element indicates that deblocking filter parameters are not present in both the picture layer parameter set and the slice header, determine that the second syntax element is not present in the slice header to be decoded”. Here one of the syntax elements can be defined in sequence parameter set instead of picture layer parameter set as described in [0075], L5-7).
Regarding claim 19, Van der Auwera et al. teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor ([0037]) to:
determine, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video (Figs. 2-3 show the conversion between video block and a video bitstream), whether a first syntax element (Table 6 shows a first syntax element deblocking_filter_in_aps_enabled_flag) and a second syntax element (Table 3 shows a second syntax element adaptive_loop_filter_enabled_flag) are included in the bitstream (Since seq_parameter_set_rbsp () and slice_header () are syntax elements, they are included in the bitstream as described in [0080], L1-3); and
perform the conversion based on the determining (Figs. 2-3 show the conversion),
wherein the first syntax element and the second syntax element have an equivalent functionality (Tables 3, 6; Both the syntaxes are related to filter enabling flag which are equivalent functionality),
wherein the first syntax element is included at a first level in the video unit in the bitstream (Table 6 shows the first syntax element deblocking_filter_in_aps_enabled_flag in a slice header which is a first level), and the second syntax element is included at a second level in the video unit different from the first level (Table 3 shows the second syntax element adaptive_loop_filter_enabled_flag in a sequence parameter set which is a second level different from the first level),
wherein the first level is a picture header and the second level is a slice header, a sequence parameter set or a picture parameter set, or wherein the first level is a slice header and the second level is a sequence parameter set or a picture parameter set (As shown in Tables 3, 6, the first level is a slice header and the second level is a sequence parameter set).
Regarding claim 20, Van der Auwera et al. teach a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus ([0037]), wherein the method comprises:
determining, for a video unit of the video, whether a first syntax element (Table 6 shows a first syntax element deblocking_filter_in_aps_enabled_flag) and a second syntax element (Table 3 shows a second syntax element adaptive_loop_filter_enabled_flag) are included in the bitstream (Since seq_parameter_set_rbsp () and slice_header () are syntax elements, they are included in the bitstream as described in [0080], L1-3); and
generating the bitstream based on the determining (Fig. 2 shows the generation of the bitstream),
wherein the first syntax element and the second syntax element have an equivalent functionality (Tables 3, 6; Both the syntaxes are related to filter enabling flag which are equivalent functionality),
wherein the first syntax element is included at a first level in the video unit in the bitstream (Table 6 shows the first syntax element deblocking_filter_in_aps_enabled_flag in a slice header which is a first level), and the second syntax element is included at a second level in the video unit different from the first level (Table 3 shows the second syntax element adaptive_loop_filter_enabled_flag in a sequence parameter set which is a second level different from the first level),
wherein the first level is a picture header and the second level is a slice header, a sequence parameter set or a picture parameter set, or wherein the first level is a slice header and the second level is a sequence parameter set or a picture parameter set (As shown in Tables 3, 6, the first level is a slice header and the second level is a sequence parameter set).
Claim 20 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US PGPub 2016/0277762 A1).
Claim 20’s recitation of “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus, wherein the method comprises:..” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(1)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 15 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore, the structure bitstream, whose scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Zhang et al. which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream ([0151]).
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 2, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van der Auwera et al. (US 2017/0064339 A1) in view of Sjöberg et al. (US PGPub 2021/0297705 A1) (Inventive concept disclosed in provisional application 62/865464 dated 06/24/2019).
Regarding claim 2, Van der Auwera et al. teach the method of claim 1. But Van der Auwera et al. do not explicitly teach that the first syntax element specifies whether a coding tool comprising luma mapping and chroma scaling is enabled and the second syntax element specifies whether the coding tool is enabled, when the first syntax element and the second syntax element are included in the bitstream, the first syntax element is included in the slice header, and the second syntax element is included in the sequence parameter set, and wherein the first syntax element is not included in the slice header in a case that the second syntax element is not included in the sequence parameter set.
However, Sjöberg et al., in the same field of endeavor (Abstract), teach a video coding system where it teaches that the first syntax element specifies whether a coding tool comprising luma mapping and chroma scaling is enabled (Sjöberg et al.; Table 17 shows the syntax elements of slice header and on Page 14 it shows a syntax element called slice_lmcs_enabled_flag) and the second syntax element specifies whether the coding tool is enabled (Sjöberg et al.; Table 17 on Page 14 shows a syntax element called sps_lmcs_enabled_flag), when the first syntax element and the second syntax element are included in the bitstream (Sjöberg et al.; Since slice_header () is a syntax element it is included in the bitstream as described in [0062]), the first syntax element is included in the slice header (Sjöberg et al.; Table 17 shows the syntax elements of slice header and on Page 14 it shows a syntax element called slice_lmcs_enabled_flag), and the second syntax element is included in the sequence parameter set (Sjöberg et al.; Table 17 on Page 14 shows a syntax element called sps_lmcs_enabled_flag which is in sequence parameter set), and wherein the first syntax element is not included in the slice header in a case that the second syntax element is not included in the sequence parameter set (Sjöberg et al.; Table 17 on Page 14 says if (sps_lmcs_enabled_flag) { slice_lmcs_enabled_flag … }, which means when sps_lmcs_enabled_flag is 0 or not included in the SPS, slice_lmcs_enabled_flag is not defined, in other words, not included in the slice header).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Van der Auwera et al’s invention of signaling deblocking filter parameters for a current slice of video data to include Sjöberg et al's usage of LMCS syntax element, because for each parameter that stays constant in at least a portion of a bitstream, there is no need to signal the parameter value for the parameter at the slice level, which saves bits and improves the overall compression efficiency (Sjöberg et al.; [0044]).
Regarding claim 13, Van der Auwera et al. teach the apparatus of claim 12. But Van der Auwera et al. do not explicitly teach that the first syntax element specifies whether a coding tool comprising luma mapping and chroma scaling is enabled and the second syntax element specifies whether the coding tool is enabled, when the first syntax element and the second syntax element are included in the bitstream, the first syntax element is included in the slice header, and the second syntax element is included in the sequence parameter set, and wherein the first syntax element is not included in the slice header in a case that the second syntax element is not included in the sequence parameter set.
However, Sjöberg et al., in the same field of endeavor (Abstract), teach a video coding system where it teaches that the first syntax element specifies whether a coding tool comprising luma mapping and chroma scaling is enabled (Sjöberg et al.; Table 17 shows the syntax elements of slice header and on Page 14 it shows a syntax element called slice_lmcs_enabled_flag) and the second syntax element specifies whether the coding tool is enabled (Sjöberg et al.; Table 17 on Page 14 shows a syntax element called sps_lmcs_enabled_flag), when the first syntax element and the second syntax element are included in the bitstream (Sjöberg et al.; Since slice_header () is a syntax element it is included in the bitstream as described in [0062]), the first syntax element is included in the slice header (Sjöberg et al.; Table 17 shows the syntax elements of slice header and on Page 14 it shows a syntax element called slice_lmcs_enabled_flag), and the second syntax element is included in the sequence parameter set (Sjöberg et al.; Table 17 on Page 14 shows a syntax element called sps_lmcs_enabled_flag which is in sequence parameter set), and wherein the first syntax element is not included in the slice header in a case that the second syntax element is not included in the sequence parameter set (Sjöberg et al.; Table 17 on Page 14 says if (sps_lmcs_enabled_flag) { slice_lmcs_enabled_flag … }, which means when sps_lmcs_enabled_flag is 0 or not included in the SPS, slice_lmcs_enabled_flag is not defined, in other words, not included in the slice header).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Van der Auwera et al’s invention of signaling deblocking filter parameters for a current slice of video data to include Sjöberg et al's usage of LMCS syntax element, because for each parameter that stays constant in at least a portion of a bitstream, there is no need to signal the parameter value for the parameter at the slice level, which saves bits and improves the overall compression efficiency (Sjöberg et al.; [0044]).
Claims 6, 9, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van der Auwera et al. (US 20170064339 A1) in view of Yoo et al. (US PGPub 2020/0260070 A1) (Inventive concept disclosed in provisional application 62/792423 dated 01/15/2019).
Regarding claim 6, Van der Auwera et al. teach the method of claim 1. But Van der Auwera et al. do not teach explicitly that a third syntax element is included in the sequence parameter set depends on a color format of the sequence parameter set, and wherein the third syntax element specifies whether a joint coding of chroma residuals is enabled.
However, Yoo et al., in the same field of endeavor (Abstract), teach a video coding system where a third syntax element is included in the sequence parameter set depends on a color format of the sequence parameter set (Yoo et al.; Table 25 shows the sequence parameter set syntax elements, where a third syntax element sps_joint_cbcr_enabled_flag is dependent on ChromaArrayType which determines the color format), and wherein the third syntax element specifies whether a joint coding of chroma residuals is enabled (Yoo et al.; Table 25 shows the third syntax element sps_joint_cbcr_enabled_flag).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Van der Auwera et al’s invention of signaling deblocking filter parameters for a current slice of video data to include Yoo et al's usage of joint cbcr coding syntax element, because it enhances image coding efficiency (Yoo et al.; [0005]).
Regarding claim 9, Van der Auwera et al. teach the method of claim 1. But Van der Auwera et al. do not explicitly teach a sps_mts_enabled_flag specifying whether sps_explicit_mts_intra_enabled_flag and sps_explicit_mts_inter_enabled_flag are present is included in the sequence parameter set, and wherein a fourth syntax element is included in the bitstream to indicate whether multiple transform selection MTS is disabled for all pictures.
However, Yoo et al., in the same field of endeavor (Abstract), teach a video coding system where a sps_mts_enabled_flag (Yoo et al.; Table 26, 1st line) specifying whether sps_explicit_mts_intra_enabled_flag and sps_explicit_mts_inter_enabled_flag are present is included in the sequence parameter set (Yoo et al.; Table 26, 2nd and 3rd line; It teaches that when sps_mts_enabled_flag is true then it specifies that both sps_explicit_mts_intra_enabled_flag and sps_explicit_mts_inter_enabled_flag are present in the sequence parameter set), and wherein a fourth syntax element is included in the bitstream to indicate whether multiple transform selection MTS is disabled for all pictures (Yoo et al.; [0103]-[0105], [0108]; it teaches a fourth syntax element tu_mts_flag which represents whether Multiple Transform Selection (MTS) is applied).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Van der Auwera et al’s invention of signaling deblocking filter parameters for a current slice of video data to include Yoo et al's usage of MTS syntax element, because it can be used to define usage of specific DCT-VIII and DST-VII transform kernels to the current block (Yoo et al.; Table 34).
Regarding claim 17, Van der Auwera et al. teach the method of claim 12. But Van der Auwera et al. do not teach explicitly that a third syntax element is included in the sequence parameter set depends on a color format of the sequence parameter set, and wherein the third syntax element specifies whether a joint coding of chroma residuals is enabled.
However, Yoo et al., in the same field of endeavor (Abstract), teach a video coding system where a third syntax element is included in the sequence parameter set depends on a color format of the sequence parameter set (Yoo et al.; Table 25 shows the sequence parameter set syntax elements, where a third syntax element sps_joint_cbcr_enabled_flag is dependent on ChromaArrayType which determines the color format), and wherein the third syntax element specifies whether a joint coding of chroma residuals is enabled (Yoo et al.; Table 25 shows the third syntax element sps_joint_cbcr_enabled_flag).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Van der Auwera et al’s invention of signaling deblocking filter parameters for a current slice of video data to include Yoo et al's usage of joint cbcr coding syntax element, because it enhances image coding efficiency (Yoo et al.; [0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 7-8, 14, 16, 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 3 recites “the first syntax element specifying whether a use of an explicit scaling list is enabled is included in the slice header, and the second syntax element specifying whether the use of the explicit scaling list is enabled is included in the sequence parameter set”. Van der Auwera et al., Yoo et al. or Sjöberg et al. fail to teach this limitation. Claim 5 recites “first syntax element specifying whether mmvd-fullpel-only is enabled is included in the picture header, and the second syntax element specifying whether mmvd-fullpel-only is enabled is included in the sequence parameter set”. Van der Auwera et al., Yoo et al. or Sjöberg et al. fail to teach this limitation. Claim 7 recites “the third syntax element is not included in the sequence parameter set when the color format of the sequence parameter set is 4:0:0, and the third syntax element is included in the sequence parameter set when the color format of the sequence parameter set is 4:2:0, 4:2:2, or 4:4:4”. Van der Auwera et al., Yoo et al. or Sjöberg et al. fail to teach this limitation. Claim 8 recites “a joint_cbcr_sign_flag is included at a level different from the sequence parameter set in the bitstream when the third syntax element specifies the joint coding of chroma residuals, and wherein the joint_cbcr_sign_flag is not included in the bitstream when the third syntax element specifies the joint coding of chroma residuals is not enabled”. Van der Auwera et al., Yoo et al. or Sjöberg et al. fail to teach this limitation. Claim 14 is similar to claim 3, claim 16 is similar to claim 5 and claim 18 is similar to claim 7. As a result, any one of the objected claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR VIDEO CODING” – Liu et al., US PGPub 2020/0396455 A1.
“VIDEO PARAMETER SET FOR HEVC AND EXTENSIONS” – Chen et al., US PGPub 2017/0094277 A1.
“PARAMETER SET CODING” – Hannuksela, US PGPub 2015/0195577 A1.
“DICTIONARY CODING OF VIDEO CONTENT” – Zou et al., US PGPub 2015/0264348 A1.
“SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PERFORMING AN ADAPTIVE RESOLUTION CHANGE IN VIDEO CODING” – Samuelsson et al., US PGPub 2022/0272378 A1.
“Slice Header Prediction for Depth Maps Bit Reduction” – Yang et al., 2012 5th International Congress on Image and Signal Processing (CISP 2012).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAINUL HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0422. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI: 10AM-6PM, Alternate FRIDAYS, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAY PATEL can be reached on (571)272-2988. 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.
/Mainul Hasan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485