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 .
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 1-17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,782. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are covered by the scope of the claims in U.S. Patent No. 12,212,782 with obvious wording variations as shown in the rejection below:
Instant Application No. 19/011/216
U.S. Patent No. 12,212,782
2. A method for video decoding in a video decoder, the method comprising: receiving a video bitstream including a picture parameter set (PPS) of a plurality of pictures, the PPS including a num_slices_in_pic_minus1 syntax that indicates a number of rectangular slices in each of the plurality of pictures; determining the number of rectangular slices based on a value of the num_slices_in_pic_minus1 syntax in the PPS; and decoding the video bitstream based on the determined number of rectangular slices in each of the plurality of pictures.
1. A method for video data decoding, executable by a processor, the method comprising: receiving encoded video data comprising picture and a num_slices_in_pic_minus1 syntax indicating a number of rectangular slices in each of the pictures referring to a picture parameter set (PPS); determining the number of rectangular slices based on the value of the num_slices_in_pic_minus1 syntax; determining an access unit count based on a picture order count; and decoding the encoded video based on the determined number of rectangular slices in each of the pictures referring to the PPS.
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to claim 2 of U.S Patent No. 12,212,782 B2.
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of U.S. Patent No.12, 212,782 B2.
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,782 B2.
Claim 6 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 212,782 B2.
Claim 7 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,782 B2.
Claim 8 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,782 B2.
Claim 9 of the instant application corresponds to claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,782 B2.
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.12,212,782 B2.
Claim 11 of the instant application corresponds to claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,782 B2.
Claim 12 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,782 B2.
Claim 13 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,782 B2.
Claim 14 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,782 B2.
Claim 15 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,782 B2.
Claim 16 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,782 B2.
Claim 17 of the instant application corresponds to claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,782 B2.
Claims 18-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,782 in view of Chang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0092449).
As per claim 18, Choi teaches a method of processing visual media data (claim 1, “method for video data decoding”), the method comprising: processing a bitstream that includes the visual data (claim 1), the bitstream includes a picture parameter set (PPS) of a plurality of pictures (claim 1, “receiving encoded video data comprising pictures and a num_slices_in_pic_minus1 syntax indicating a number of rectangular slices in each of the pictures referring to a picture parameter set (PPS)”); the PPS includes a num_slices_in_pic_minus1 syntax that indicates a number of rectangular slices in each of the plurality of pictures (claim 1); the number of rectangular slices is determined based on a value of the num_slices_in_pic_minus1 syntax in the PPS (claim 1, determining the number of rectangular slices based on the value of the num_slices_in_pic_minus1 syntax); and the video bitstream is processed based on the determined number of rectangular slices in each of the plurality of pictures (claim 1, and decoding the encoded video data based on the determined number of rectangular slices in each of the pictures referring to the PPS). Choi does not explicitly discloses processing a bitstream that includes the visual media data according to a format rule, as recited in claim 18. However, Chang teaches processing a bitstream that includes the visual media data according to a format rule (see a least table 1, and fig. 1, 3-7).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Chang with Choi in order to increase the efficiency of image processing.
Claim 19 of the instant application corresponds to claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,782 B2.
Claim 20 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,782 B2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2-3, 10-11, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Chang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0092449 A1).
As per claim 2, Chang teaches a method for video decoding in a video decoder (figs. 4 and 7), the method comprising: receiving a video bitstream including a picture parameter set (PPS) of a plurality of pictures ([0019], [0120-0121] and table 2), the PPS including a num_slices_in_pic_minus1 syntax that indicates a number of rectangular slices in each of the plurality of pictures (table 1 col. 15; “num_sices_in_pic_minus1 plus 1 specifies the number of slices in each picture referring to the PPS”); determining the number of rectangular slices based on a value of the num_slices_in_pic_minus1 syntax in the PPS (table 1, col. 15; “num_slices_in_pic_minus1 plus 1 specifies the number of slices in each picture referring to the PPS. The value of num_slices_in_pic_minus1 shall be in the range of 0 to NumBricksInPic − 1, inclusive.”); and decoding the video bitstream based on the determined number of rectangular slices in each of the plurality of pictures (fig. 4).
As per claim 3, Chang teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 2. In addition, Chang teaches wherein the value of the num_slices_in_pic_minus1 syntax is in a range of 0 to preset value (table 1, col. 15; “… the value of num_slices_in_pic_minus1 shall be in the range of 0 to NumBricksInPic − 1, inclusive”).
As per claim 10, which is the corresponding method for video encoding in a video encoder, with the limitations of the method for video decoder as recited in claim 2, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 2 also applies here. In addition, the Examiner notes that Chang discloses the corresponding encoder and method for encoding video data (fig. 3 and 6).
As per claim 11, which is the corresponding method with the limitations of the limitations as the method as recited in claim 3, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 3 also applies here.
As per claim 18, which is the corresponding method of processing visual media data with the limitations of the method for video decoding in a video decoder as recited in claim 2, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 2 also applies here. In addition, Chang teaches processing a bitstream that includes the visual media data according to a format rule (see a least table 1, and fig. 1, 3-7).
As per claim 19, which is the corresponding method with the limitations of the limitations as the method as recited in claim 3, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 3 also applies here.
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) 4-5, 8, 12-13, 16, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0092449 A1) and in view of Deng et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0043717 A1).
As per claim 4, Chang teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 2. Chang does not explicitly disclose wherein the value of num_slices_in_pic_minus1 syntax is equal to 0 to when no_pic_partition_flag syntax is equal to 1.
However, Deng teaches wherein the value of num_slices_in_pic_minus1 syntax is equal to 0 when a no_pic_partition_flag syntax is equal to 1 ([0145]; “when no_pic_partition_partition_flag is equal to 1 the value of num_slices_minus1 is inferred to be equal to 0”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Deng with Chang for the benefit of providing increased efficiency in video processing.
As per claim 5, Chang teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 2. Chang does not explicitly teach wherein the number of rectangular slice is inferred to be one when a flag corresponding to a picture of the plurality of pictures indicates no partitioning.
However, Deng teaches wherein the number of rectangular slices is inferred to be one when a flag corresponding to a picture of the plurality of pictures indicates no partitioning is applied ([0145], “no_pic_partition_flag is equal to 1 specifies that no picture partitioning is applied to each picture referring to the PPS”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Deng with Chang for the benefit of providing increased efficiency in video processing.
As per claim 8, Chang teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 2. Chang does not explicitly disclose a delta value between a number of subpictures and the number of rectangular slices is inferred to be zero when a flag corresponding to a single slice per subpicture is signaled.
However, Deng teaches a delta value between a number of subpictures and the number of rectangular slices is inferred to be zero when a flag corresponding to a single slice per subpicture is signaled ([0145]; “ single_slice_per_subpic_flag equal to 1 specifies that each subpicture consists of one and only one rectangular slice. Single_slice_per_subpic_flag equal to 0 specifies that each subpicture may consist of one or more rectangular slices. When single_slice_per_subpic_flag is equal to 1, num_slices_in_pic_minus1 is inferred to be equal to sps_num_subpics_minus1. When not present, the value of single_slice_per_subpic_flag is inferred to be equal to 0”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Deng with Chang for the benefit of providing increased efficiency in video processing.
As per claim 12, which is the corresponding method with the limitations of the limitations as the method as recited in claim 4 thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 4 also applies here.
As per claim 13, which is the corresponding method with the limitations of the limitations as the method as recited in claim 5, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 5 also applies here.
As per claim 16, which is the corresponding method with the limitations of the limitations as the method as recited in claim 8 thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 8 also applies here.
As per claim 20, which is the corresponding method with the limitations of the limitations as the method as recited in claim 4 thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 4 also applies here.
As per claim 21, which is the corresponding method with the limitations of the limitations as the method as recited in claim 5 thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 5 also applies here.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0092449) in view of Zhang et al., (U.S. Pub. No.2022/0248061).
As per claim 6, Chang teaches wherein the video bitstream includes one or more subpictures (abstract, [0005], [0007], [0018-0019], [0056], [0059]). Chang does not explicitly disclose wherein the video bitstream includes one or more tile group headers, one or more subpictures, and one or more picture order count (POC), and the one or more tile group headers further include a set of adaptive resolution change reference information.
However, Zhang teaches the video bitstream includes one or more tile group headers, and one or more picture order counts (POC) ([0154] and table 8; “tile group header” and “picture order count”), and one or more tile group headers further includes a set of adaptive resolution change reference information (fig. 8, fig. 14, [0038], [0083], [0115-0116], [0134-0136], [0145], [0170], [0309-0311]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Zhang with Chang in order to provide improved image quality and efficient image processing.
As per claim 14, which is the corresponding method with the limitations of the limitations as the method as recited in claim 6 thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 6 also applies here.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. ) in view of Deng et al., (2023/0043717 A1) and further in view of Chang et al., ( “Joint Video Experts Team (JVET), of ITU-T STG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC 29/ WG 11 17th Meeting Brussels, BE 7-17 January 2020”; herein referenced as “Chang’2”).
As per claim 9, Chang (modified by Deng) teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 8. Chang does not explicitly disclose wherein the number of subpictures is less than the number of rectangular slices.
However, Chang’2 teaches wherein the number of subpictures is less than the number of rectangular slices (1. Problem Statement, pg. 1. “the number of subpictures in picture shall be smaller than or equal to the number of slices in picture”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Chang’2 with Chang (modified by Deng) for the benefit to provide efficient signaling between number of subpictures and number of slices in picture.
As per claim 17, which is the corresponding method with the limitations of the limitations as the method as recited in claim 9, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 9 also applies here.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 15 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Park et al., (U.S Pub. No. 20230080116-A1)
Hendry et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 20240205424-A1)
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1821. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30 P.M..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jamie Atala can be reached 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.
JESSICA PRINCE
Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/JESSICA M PRINCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486