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 .
Acknowledgment of Amendments
Applicants’ amendment filed 04/14/2026 overcomes the following objection(s)/rejection(s):
The double patenting rejection for claims 18-21 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2, 4-10, 12-17 and 22-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 2, 4-10, 12-17 and 22-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 9 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 12,212,782 B2 in view of Park et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0080116 A1.
As per claim 2, Choi teaches a method for video decoding in a video decoder (claim 1, “a method for video data decoding”), 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 (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)”); determining the number rectangular slices 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 decoding the video bitstream based on the determined number of rectangular slices in each of the plurality of pictures (claim 1, “decoding the encoded video data based on the determined number of rectangular slices in each of the pictures referring to the PPS”), the value of the num_slices_in_pic_minus1 syntax being in a range of 0 to a preset value (claim 2, “wherein the num_slices_in_pic_minus1 syntax is set in a range of 0 to a present value”). Choi does not explicitly disclose the preset value being defined based on a maximum number of slices per access unit.
However, Park teaches the preset value being defined based on a maximum number of slices per access unit ([0238], “The value of num_slices_in_pic_minus1 may have a value from 0 to MaxSlicePerAu-1. The variable MaxSlicePerAu may indicate the maximum number of slices allowed per access unit, for example, may indicate the maximum number of slices allowed in the current 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 Park with Chang in order to provide improved encoding/decoding efficiency, [0004] and [0016].
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 is the corresponding method for video encoding in a video encoder 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.
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.
Regarding claim 22, Choi teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform a method of encoding a video bitstream (claim 18), the encoding method comprising: determining a number of rectangular slices in each of a plurality of pictures (claim 18, “receive 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)”); determining a picture parameter set (PPS) of the plurality of pictures to be included in a video bitstream, the PPS including a num_slices_in_pic_minus1 syntax that indicates the number of rectangular slices in each of the plurality of pictures (claim 18, “receive 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); determine the number of rectangular slices based on the value of the num_slices_in_pic_minus1 syntax”), the num_slices_in_pic_minus1 syntax having a value in a range of 0 to a preset value (claim 2, “wherein the num_slices_in_pic_minus1 syntax is set in a range of 0 to a preset value”). Choi does not explicitly disclose the preset value being defined based on a maximum number of slices per access unit; encoding the video bitstream based on the determined number of rectangular slices in each of the plurality of pictures; and transmitting the video bitstream.
However, Park teaches the preset value being defined based on a maximum number of slices per access unit ([0238], “The value of num_slices_in_pic_minus1 may have a value from 0 to MaxSlicePerAu-1. The variable MaxSlicePerAu may indicate the maximum number of slices allowed per access unit, for example, may indicate the maximum number of slices allowed in the current picture”), encoding the video bitstream based on the determined number of rectangular slices in each of the plurality of pictures ([0238-0239], [0253], and fig. 1).
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 Park with Chang in order to provide improved encoding/decoding efficiency, [0004] and [0016].
Claim 23 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,782 B2.
Claim 24 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,782 B2.
Claim 25 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,782 B2.
Claim 26 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,782 B2.
Claim 27 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,782 B2.
Claim 28 of the instant application corresponds to claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,782 B2.
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) 2, 10 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0092449 A1) in view of Park et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0080116 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). Chang does not explicitly disclose the value of the num_slice_in_pic_minus1 syntax being in a range of 0 to a preset value, the preset value being defined based on a maximum number of slices per access unit.
However, Park teaches the value of the num_slices_in_pic_minus1 syntax being in a range of 0 to a preset value, the preset value being defined based on a maximum number slices per access unit ([0238], “The value of num_slices_in_pic_minus1 may have a value from 0 to MaxSlicePerAu-1. The variable MaxSlicePerAu may indicate the maximum number of slices allowed per access unit, for example, may indicate the maximum number of slices allowed in the current 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 Park with Chang in order to provide improved encoding/decoding efficiency, [0004] and [0016].
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 22, which is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instruction with the limitations of the method for video encoding in a video encoder recited in claim 10, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 10 also applies here. In addition, Chang (modified by Park) discloses transmitting the video bitstream ([0026]).
Claim(s) 4-5, 8, 12-13, 16, 23-24 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0092449 A1) in view of Park et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0080116 A1) and in view of Deng et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0043717 A1).
As per claim 4, Chang (modified by Park) as a whole 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 (modified by Park) for the benefit of providing increased efficiency in video processing.
As per claim 5, Chang (modified by Park) as a whole 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 (modified by Park) for the benefit of providing increased efficiency in video processing.
As per claim 8, Chang (modified by Park) as a whole 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 (modified by Park) 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 23, which is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with the limitations of claim 4, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 4 also applies here.
As per claim 24, which is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with the limitations of claim 5, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 5 also apply here.
As per claim 27, which is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with the limitations of claim 8, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 8 also applies here.
Claim(s) 6, 14 and 25 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 Park et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0080116 A1) in view of Zhang et al., (U.S. Pub. No.2022/0248061).
As per claim 6, Chang (modified by Park) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above see claim 2. In addition, 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 (modified by Park) 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.
As per claim 25, which is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with the limitations of claim 6, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 6 also apply here.
Claim(s) 9, 17, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0092449 A1) in view of Park et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0080116 1), further in view of Deng et al., (2023/0043717 A1) and in further 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 Park and 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 Park and 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.
As per claim 28, which is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with the limitations of claim 9, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 9 also applies here.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 15 and 26 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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
Prosecution Insights