DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding section 101, Applicant argues: “Claims 1-20 are rejected as being directed toward patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In response, the Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 12, 15, and 18 to claim, with even further specificity, a particular technical solution to a problem in the technical field of video coding.”
Examiner notes that the amended claim language is addressed in the updated reasons for rejection below. Examiner further notes that specificity matters when the language limits the claimed methods to performing particular steps or limits apparata and products to comprising particular structures. Describing specifics of a data content intended to be stored in a bitstream does not clearly limit the claims to using particular structures or to performing particular steps.
Examiner suggests claiming limitations particularly reciting structures of a claimed apparatus or steps of a claimed method.
Applicant argues: “First, independent claim 1, as a method claim, requires that the conversion is performed according to a format rule”
Examiner notes that (a) Claim 1 does not recite “conversion is performed according to a format rule,” and (b) the claim does not recite a particular conversion or it’s conversion steps to be performed by a computer. Applicant may presume features that are explained in the Specification, however limitations from the Specification can not be read into the claims.
Applicant argues: “Second, the technical solution provided by the limitations of claim 1 as amended addresses multiple technical problems, as indicated by the Applicant's specification: 3) A list of subpicture IDs may be signalled in picture headers (PHs), one for each of the subpictures. However, when the list of subpicture IDs is signalled in PHs, and when a subset of the subpictures is extracted from the bitstream, all the PHs would need to be changed. This is undesirable. 4) Currently when subpicture IDs are indicated to be explicitly signalled, by sps_subpic_id_present_flag (or the name of the syntax element is changed to subpic ids_ explicitly signalled_ flag) equal to 1, subpicture IDs may be not signalled anywhere. This is problematic as subpicture IDs need to be explicitly signalled in either the SPS or the PPS when subpicture IDs are indicated to be explicitly signalled.”
Examiner notes that these are not presented as problems in the functioning of a computer (required under section 101), but rather to a preference for data arrangement. Also and materially, the claims do not represent that the prerequisite conditions (embodying the problems above) are present in the images to be converted; thus the claims are not limited to addressing these particular problems.
Applicant should consider including steps of determination of such pre-requisite conditions in the claims.
Applicant argues: “See Applicant's specification, para. [0054]. Accordingly, the technical solution provided by claim 1 can achieve the following technical effects: avoiding modification of all picture headers (PHs) when extracting a subset of subpictures from the bitstream, improving encoding and decoding efficiency, and reducing computational complexity.”
Examiner notes that Specification Paragraph 54 does not mention reducing computational complexity or coding efficiency. In fact, these features are not mentioned anywhere in the Specification.
Applicant argues: “Indeed, the limitations of claim 1 are highly integrated with the practical application of video coding.”
Examiner notes that Claim 1 is not limited to video coding. Intended use of the Claim 1 in video coding does not limit the claim.
Applicant argues: “However, in view of the present amendments, the Applicant respectfully disagrees. As amended, claim 1 recites, in part, "performing a conversion between a picture of a video and a bitstream of the video according to a format rule", which means that the format rule restricts the conversion, and thus necessarily limits the claimed method that performs the conversion. Accordingly, all limitations of claim 1 must be given patentable weight and fully examined.”
Examiner notes that all the claim limitations are given patentable weight and fully examined. See Reasons for Rejection below. Where Applicant chooses claim language that does not describe a claim structure or require a method step, that claim language is given patentable weight commensurate to the claim language and based on the rules in the MPEP.
Where Applicant intends the claimed method to perform a particular step, Applicant can claim a particular step.
Applicant argues: “Accordingly, the technical solutions provided by the present claims avoid modification of all picture headers (PHs) when extracting a subset of subpictures from the bitstream, which in turn improves video coding efficiency, and reduces computational complexity - problems that the field of video coding always seeks to improve upon.”
Examiner notes that Applicant does not cite evidence for this conclusion. Specification does not describe this problem or use this terminology. The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”).
Applicant argues: “Turning to the Applicant's primary remarks, the combination of MFA, HEVC Overview, and Chien fails to render obvious claims 1, 3-12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20 because MFA, HEVC Overview, and Chien does not disclose that, in a case that a value of a third syntax element indicates that a mapping between identifier variables of the one or more subpictures and the one or more subpictures is explicitly signaled, a fourth syntax element in a PPS takes a first value, which indicates that the identifier variable of a subpicture is derived based on a first subpicture identifier syntax element, or takes a second value, which indicates that the identifier variable of a subpicture is derived based on a second subpicture identifier syntax element.”
Examiner disagrees. This feature appears to be part of “the latest VVC draft text” stating in Paragraph 53 and before Applicant’s solution is introduced in Paragraph 54 on page 19. For example a third syntax can be “sps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag equal to 1 specifies that subpicture ID mapping is signalled” AAPA, Specification, Page 12, third to last paragraph. “If sps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag [third syntax] is equal to 1, the length of slice_subpic_id is equal to sps_subpic_id_len_minus1 + 1 [first syntax],” is thus explicitly signaled in the SPS. See Specification Page 17, last paragraph. Note that “sps_subpic_id_present_flag” on page 12, fourth to last paragraph also reads on this element.
Applicant argues: “MFA, HEVC Overview, and Chien also do not disclose that, in the above context, the fourth syntax element being equal to the first value specifies that the mapping is not signalled in the PPS, and the fourth syntax element being equal to the second value specifies that the mapping is signalled in the PPS.”
Examiner disagrees. This feature appears to be part of AAPA, “the latest VVC draft text” stating in Paragraph 53 and before Applicant’s solution is introduced in Paragraph 54 on page 19. For example the fourth syntax can be “if pps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag [fourth syntax] is equal to 1, the length of slice_subpic_id is equal to pps_subpic_id_len_minusl + 1, [second syntax]” representing derivation based on the second syntax element. Cumulatively note that, if pps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag [fourth syntax] is equal to 0, the identifier variable may be derived based on sps_subpic_id_len_minusl + 1 [first syntax] or syntax in any other parameter set. See AAPA, Specification, Page 17, last paragraph.
Applicant argues: “On pages 14-15, in rejecting claim 2, the Office Action cites MF A at pages 12, 17, and 19 as purportedly disclosing the above-emphasized limitations. However, for the following reasons, the Applicant respectfully disagrees. Section 7.4.3.4 on page 12 of MFA discloses that, "[w]hen sps_subpic_id_present_ flag is 0 or sps subpic id signalling_present_ flag is equal to 1, pps subpic id signalling_present_ flag shall be equal to O." Second 7.4.3.3 on page 10 of MFA discloses that, "sps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag equal to 1 specifies that subpicture ID mappmg 1s signalled m the SPS. sps subpic id signalling_present_ flag equal to O specifies that subpicture ID mappmg is not signalled in the SPS.” One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that based on these disclosures, when sps subpic id signalling_present_ flag indicates that the mapping is explicitly signaled, the value of sps subpic id signalling_present_ flag must be 1, and in such case the value of pps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag must be 0. … That is, if the derivation is not performed using the second subpicture identifier syntax element, the derivation must be performed using the first subpicture identifier syntax element. AAPA simply fails to disclose or suggest that the derivation must be performed based on sps_subpic_id_len_minusl when the value of pps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag is 0.”
Examiner notes that Claim 2 (incorporated into the present Claim 1) did not require flag values to be 1 or 0. However this feature was cited with respect to Claim 3: For example, “if pps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag is equal to 1, the length of slice_subpic_id is equal to pps_subpic_id_len_minusl + 1,” which is signaled in the PPS and thus corresponds to the second value (equal to 1) of the fourth syntax. Further, “Otherwise, the length of slice subpic id is equal to Ceil( Log2 ( sps num subpics minusl + 1 ) ),” which corresponds to the other/first value (equal to 0) of the fourth syntax and specifies a value not signaled in the PPS. Materially, this is Applicant’s own description of the claimed feature which is attributed to the VVC standard. Also note that this is one of the cumulative reasons for rejection of the format rules as noted in the Reasons for Rejection below.
Response to Amendment
Examiner withdraws the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19 over the copending Application No. 17850449, in view of the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-9, 12, 14-15, 17-18, 20 are rejected as being directed toward patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, under the “Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” issued on January 7, 2019 (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, 50).
The claims are directed to statutory categories of methods, apparata, articles of manufacture (under Step 1).
Upon analysis of the present claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation (under Step 2A, prong one), the claims appear to recite a judicial exception, an abstract idea, directed to mathematical concepts and operations for analyzing information at a high degree of generality “performing a conversion between a picture of a video and a bitstream of the video,” for Claims 1-17 and “generating the bitstream of the video comprising a plurality of pictures” for Claims 18-20. The claims recite abstract ideas directed to determinations broadly embodying mathematical concepts and calculations. This finding is consistent with the precedential decision in Ex parte Desjardins, 2024-000567. Even though the Specification provides examples of practical applications in the form of “decoding video data” and “encoding video data” as in Specification, Paragraph 2, the present claims are not limited to implementing such features.
The claims include several categories of this abstract idea: information (a picture, a video, a bitstream, format rule), collecting information (); outputting information (), and/or analyzing information at a high degree of algorithmic generality (performing a conversion between a picture of a video and a bitstream of the video … generating the bitstream based on a picture of the video). These categories have been identified as abstract ideas by the Federal Circuit as summarized in Electric Power Group, LLC v. ALSTOM SA, 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016):
Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12, 127 S.Ct. 1746, 167 L.Ed.2d 737 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. 1354*1354 v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Commc'ns, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 Fed.Appx. 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589-90, 98 S.Ct. 2522, 57 L.Ed.2d 451 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67, 93 S.Ct. 253, 34 L.Ed.2d 273 (1972). And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Upon consideration of the record (under Step 2A, prong two), Examiner did not find that the additional elements of the present claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that judicial exception “in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” The additional elements, when considered individually or in a claim as a whole, “An apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon … A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions … A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream …”, do not seem to reflect a substantive improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field under the standards of the present judicial guidance (; do not seem use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (general purpose computers and computer media are not particular machines); do not seem to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (formatting data is not a physical transformation of an article).
This is further evidenced in that the additional elements, merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e. obtaining, analyzing, transforming, or outputting information for use with the judicial exception as in CyperSource and Mayo, including elements describing data product by process and data products being worked on by the claims.
Substantially similar subject matter has been found ineligible in McRO, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Presenting intended results without a particular automation beyond what is well-understood, routine, or conventional is ineligible); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Media content does not distinguish the claimed process or apparatus from the substantially identical process or apparatus in the prior art); In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplishes the same result is not sufficient to distinguish the claims over prior art); Electric Power Group, LLC v. ALSTOM SA, 830 F. 3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Selecting information for collection by content or source, analyzing it, and displaying results of collection and analysis are not eligible either separately or in combination); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F. 3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Encoding and decoding of an image is an abstract concept long utilized to transmit information, and addition of a mathematical equation that simply changes the data into other forms of data cannot render it patent eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340-41 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (organizing, displaying, and manipulating data encoded for human and machine readability is directed to an abstract concept).
Finally, the claimed elements, when considered individually and in combination (under step 2B), do not seem to provide an Inventive Concept that is “significantly more” than the ineligible subject matter. The claims simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry (performing a conversion between a picture of a video and a bitstream of the video) to the judicial exception (intended bitstream format), at a high level of generality (not specifying any particular steps for converting the information to the intended format.).
The claims should be amended to include meaningful limitations within the technical field.
Claim Construction
Note that, for purposes of compact prosecution, multiple reasons for rejection may be provided for a claim or a part of the claim. The rejection reasons are cumulative, and Applicant should review all the stated reasons as guides to improving the claim language and advancing the prosecution toward an allowance.
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed by a method claim, or by claim language that does not limit an apparatus claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses; (B) “wherein” clauses; and (C) “whereby” clauses. M.P.E.P. 2111.04. Other examples are where the claim passively indicates that a function is performed or a structure is used without requiring that the function or structure is a limitation on the claim itself. The clause may be given some weight to the extent it provides "meaning and purpose” to the claimed invention but not when “it simply expresses the intended result” of the invention. In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, during prosecution, claim language that may or may not be limiting should be considered non-limiting under the standard of the broadest reasonable interpretation. See M.P.E.P. 904.01(a); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Changes to the dimensions of prior art structures are considered obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular changes would produce non-obvious results. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) (the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device).
While Applicant is allowed to be his own lexicographer in describing claim structures, Examiner must reject the claim based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed elements and not based on the presence of Applicant’s exact phrasing. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 904.01(a).
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113(I).
Material or article worked upon by an apparatus does not limit an apparatus claim. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See, MPEP 2115.
"The manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself.” In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580; 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967).
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-15, 17-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant admitted prior art in the Specification (“AAPA”) in view of “Overview of HEVC High-Level Syntax and Reference Picture Management,” IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS FOR VIDEO TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 22, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2012 (“HEVC Overview”) and in view of US 20160261868 to Chien “Chien.”
Note that Specification Paragraph 30 refers to HEVC and VVC prior art standards that serve the bases for the proposed invention. HEVC Overview and Chien references are also cited as explaining relevant features of the HEVC with which the claims are concerned.
Regarding Claim 1: “A method of video processing, comprising:
performing a conversion between a picture of a video and a bitstream of the video, according to a format rule, (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, this element broadly includes encoding or decoding under the industry video coding standards. See Original Claims 10-11 and Specification Paragraph 30. Prior art describes this under the “H.264/MPEG-4 Advanced Video Coding (AVC) and H.265/HEVC standards” AAPA, Specification, Paragraph 30. Also note that “"video coding" or "coding" may refer generically to video encoding and video decoding.” Chien, Paragraphs 33, 34.)
wherein the format rule specifies that each of identifier variables of one or more subpictures of the picture is derived based on a first subpicture identifier syntax element in a sequence parameter set (SPS) referred to by the picture or a second subpicture identifier syntax element in a picture parameter set (PPS) referred to by the picture.” (First note that “wherein the format rule specifies” describes the format rule by its contents to be operated on or by a process of making it; however this information is not recited as a step performed by the claimed method. For example, as noted in Specification and prior art, a video can be coded according to the VVC format rule, which remains true even when many constituent formats of the VVC are not used in the actual coding. Thus, the method reads on the prior art cited for the rest of the claim. See Claim Construction section above.
Cumulatively, note that the the “first subpicture identifier syntax element” or the “second subpicture identifier syntax element” appears to be described in the Specification as deriving slice_subpic_id. See AAPA, Specification, Page 17, last paragraph. This portion of the Specification is a reference to AAPA, “the latest VVC draft text” stating in Paragraph 53 and before Applicant’s solution is introduced in Paragraph 54 on page 19. Further, Specification, Page 17, last paragraph provides an example of the claim feature: “If sps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag is equal to 1, the length of slice_subpic_id is equal to sps_subpic_id_len_minusl + 1 [first subpicture identifier variable]. … Otherwise, if pps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag is equal to 1, the length of slice_subpic_id is equal to pps_subpic_id_len_minusl + 1, [second subpicture identifier variable]” This format rule appears to be a feature of VVC. See similar teachings in Chien, Paragraph 32.)
wherein in a case that a value of a third syntax element indicates that a mapping between the identifier variables of the one or more subpictures and the one or more subpictures is explicitly signaled, (This feature appears to be part of AAPA, “the latest VVC draft text” stating in Paragraph 53 and before Applicant’s solution is introduced in Paragraph 54 on page 19. For example a third syntax can be “sps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag equal to 1 specifies that subpicture ID mapping is signalled” AAPA, Specification, Page 12, third to last paragraph. “If sps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag [third syntax] is equal to 1, the length of slice_subpic_id is equal to sps_subpic_id_len_minus1 + 1 [first syntax],” is thus explicitly signaled in the SPS. See Specification Page 17, last paragraph. Note that “sps_subpic_id_present_flag” on page 12, fourth to last paragraph also reads on this element.)
a fourth syntax element in the PPS takes a first value to indicate that the identifier variable of a subpicture is derived based on the first subpicture identifier syntax element or a second value to indicate that the identifier variable of a subpicture is derived based on the second subpicture identifier syntax element, and (This feature appears to be part of AAPA, “the latest VVC draft text” stating in Paragraph 53 and before Applicant’s solution is introduced in Paragraph 54 on page 19. For example the fourth syntax can be “if pps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag [fourth syntax] is equal to 1, the length of slice_subpic_id is equal to pps_subpic_id_len_minusl + 1, [second syntax]” representing derivation based on the second syntax element. Cumulatively note that, if pps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag [fourth syntax] is equal to 0, the identifier variable may be derived based on sps_subpic_id_len_minusl + 1 [first syntax] or syntax in any other parameter set. See AAPA, Specification, Page 17, last paragraph.)
wherein the fourth syntax element equal to the first value specifies that the mapping is not signalled in the PPS, and the fourth syntax element equal to the second value specifies that the mapping is signalled in the PPS.” (For example, “if pps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag is equal to 1, the length of slice_subpic_id is equal to pps_subpic_id_len_minusl + 1,” which is signaled in the PPS and thus corresponds to the second value (equal to 1) of the fourth syntax. Further, “Otherwise, the length of slice subpic id is equal to Ceil( Log2 ( sps num subpics minusl + 1 ) ),” which corresponds to the other/first value (equal to 0) of the fourth syntax and specifies a value not signaled in the PPS.)
Where necessary, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of HEVC and VVC standards in AAPA with the details of HEVC operation in HEVC Overview and Chien, in order to understand the pertinent parts of the HEVC and VVC standards.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Regarding Claim 3: “The method of claim 1, wherein the first value is 0 and the second value is 1.” (For example, “if pps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag is equal to 1, the length of slice_subpic_id is equal to pps_subpic_id_len_minusl + 1,” which is signaled in the PPS and thus corresponds to the second value (equal to 1) of the fourth syntax. Further, “Otherwise, the length of slice subpic id is equal to Ceil( Log2 ( sps num subpics minusl + 1 ) ),” which corresponds to the other/first value (equal to 0) of the fourth syntax and specifies a value not signaled in the PPS.)
Regarding Claim 4: “The method of claim 1, wherein
the identifier variables (denoted SubpicldList[i]) are derived as follows: (First note that AAPA indicates that “SubpicldList[SubPicldx] is equal to slice_subpic_id” AAPA, Specification, Page 17, last paragraph. Another words, Specification indicates that the term SubpicldList represents the term subpic_id[i] term as used in VVC. See representation of this term in AAPA above and also using a term sps_subpic_id[i] on AAPA, Specification, Page 11, table at the top of the page. )
for( i = 0; i <= sps_num_subpics_minusl; i++ ) … if( subpic_ids_explicitly signalled_flag ) (AAPA teaches substantively similar conditions: “if( sps_subpics_id_signalling_present_flag ) { … for( i = 0; i <= sps_num_subpics_minusl; i++ )” in AAPA, Specification, Page 11, table at the top of the page. Note that sps_subpics_id_signalling_present_flag in AAPA performs the function of the claimed subpic_ids_explicitly signalled_flag. Although the order of the lines is reversed, both the claimed and the AAPA versions require that this condition is true before proceeding to assignment of SubpicldList or the subpic_id[i] based on the SPS signal.)
SubpicldList[i] = subpic_ids_in_pps_flag ? pps_subpic_id[i] : sps_subpic_id[i] (In this claim element, the value defaults to sps_subpic_id[i] unless the value is indicated in PPS in which case pps_subpic_id[i] is used. AAPA indicates that under the above conditions, the value defaults to sps_subpic_id [ i] in AAPA, Specification, Page 11, table at the top of the page. However, if the value is indicated in PPS then pps_subpic_id[i] is used: “if( pps subpics id signalling_present_ flag) { … pps_subpic_id[ i]” in AAPA, Specification, Page 13, in the table at the top of the page. This effectively performs the claimed function.
As noted in Claim 1, AAPA indicates the relationship of using an SPS value if it is signaled in the SPS, the PPS value if it is signaled in the PPS, and using the slice value if it is signaled in the slice: “If sps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag is equal to 1, the length of slice_subpic_id is equal to sps_subpic_id_len_minusl + 1. … Otherwise, pps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag is equal to 1, the length of slice_subpic_id is equal to pps_subpic_id_len_minusl + 1 … Otherwise, the length of slice subpic id is equal to Ceil( Log2 ( sps num subpics minusl + 1 ) ),” which is the default slice value in this case AAPA. Specification, Page 17, last paragraph. Therefore, this manner of signaling dependence is known and obvious.)
else … SubpicldList[i] = i, (Prior art also exemplifies this “sps_subpic_id[ i] … When not present, and when sps subpic id present_ flag equal to 0, the value of sps subpic_id[ i] is inferred to be equal to i, for each I in the range of 0 to sps_num_subpics_minusl, inclusive.” AAPA, Specification, Page 12, last paragraph.
Also as noted in Claim 1, AAPA indicates the relationship of using an SPS value if it is signaled in the SPS, the PPS value if it is signaled in the PPS, and using the slice value if it is signaled in the slice or defaulting to a value when not signalled: “If sps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag is equal to 1, the length of slice_subpic_id is equal to sps_subpic_id_len_minusl + 1. … Otherwise, pps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag is equal to 1, the length of slice_subpic_id is equal to pps_subpic_id_len_minusl + 1 … Otherwise, the length of slice subpic id is equal to Ceil( Log2 ( sps num subpics minusl + 1 ) ),” which is the default slice value in this case AAPA. Specification, Page 17, last paragraph. Therefore, this manner of signaling dependence is known and obvious.)
wherein sps_num_subpics_minusl plus 1 specifies a number of subpictures in each picture, (“sps_num_subpics_minusl plus 1 specifies the number of subpictures.” AAPA, Specification, Page 11, third paragraph.)
subpic_ids_explicitly_signalled_flag is the third syntax element, subpic_ids_in_pps_flag is the fourth syntax element, (“sps_subpic_id_present_flag equal to 1 specifies that subpicture ID mapping is present in the SPS. sps subpic id present_ flag equal to 0 specifies that subpicture ID mapping is not present in the SPS.” See AAPA, Specification, Page 12, fourth paragraph. Although prior art does not use the same name for this flag, however (a) the prior art flag performs substantively identical function to the claimed flag as noted above, (b) both the claimed signal and the prior art flag are used in the context of enabling the loop “for( i = 0; i <= sps_num_subpics_minusl; i++ ),” and (c) while Applicant is allowed to be his own lexicographer in describing claim structures, Examiner must reject the claim based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed elements and not based on the presence of Applicant’s exact phrasing. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 904.01(a).)
sps_subpic_id is the first subpicture identifier syntax element, and pps_subpic_id is the second subpicture identifier syntax element.” (See the first identifier as “sps_subpic_id[ i] specifies that subpicture ID of the i-th subpicture” in AAPA, Specificaiton, Page 12, last paragraph. See the second identifier as “pps_subpic_id [ i] specifies the subpicture ID of the i-th subpicture” in AAPA, Specification, Page 14, second to last paragraph. Also note that the order in the description designates a logical dependence order as well: “If sps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag is equal to 1, the length of slice_subpic_id is equal to sps_subpic_id_len_minusl + 1. … Otherwise, pps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag is equal to 1, the length of slice_subpic_id is equal to pps_subpic_id_len_minusl + 1 …” indicating that SPS is consulted first and PPS second. Specification, Page 17, last paragraph.)
Regarding Claim 5: “The method of claim 1, wherein the fourth syntax element is equal to zero due to the third syntax element being zero or the first subpicture identifier syntax element being one.” (For example: “When sps_subpic_id_present_flag [third syntax] is 0 or sps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag [first syntax] is equal to 1, pps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag [fourth syntax] shall be equal to 0.” . AAPA, Specification, Page 14, first paragraph.
Cumulatively note other variant embodiments: “If sps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag [third syntax] is equal to 1, the length of slice_subpic_id is equal to sps_subpic_id_len_minusl + 1. … Otherwise, pps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag [fourth syntax] is equal to 1, the length of slice_subpic_id is equal to pps_subpic_id_len_minusl + 1 …” indicating that SPS is consulted first and PPS second. AAPA, Specification, Page 17, last paragraph. And a third related embodiment where “sps subpic id present_ flag [third syntax] equal to 0, the value of sps subpic_id[i] [first syntax] is inferred to be equal to i, for each I in the range of 0 to sps_num_subpics_minusl, inclusive” AAPA, Specification, Page 12, last paragraph. Thus, the first syntax being 1 infers that the third syntax is 0, and thus indicates the same case as above where the fourth syntax can be 0 as well.)
Regarding Claim 6: “The method of claim 1, wherein the fourth syntax element is equal to one due to the third syntax element being one and the first subpicture identifier syntax element being zero.” (For example: “pps_subpic_id_signallingpresent_flag [fourth syntax] equal to 1 specifies that subpicture ID mapping is signalled in the PPS.” Unless: “pps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag equal to 0 specifies that subpicture ID mapping is not signalled in the PPS. When sps_subpic_id_present_flag [third syntax] is 0 or sps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag [first syntax] is equal to 1, pps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag shall be equal to 0.” AAPA, Specification, Page 14, first paragraph. This indicates that in order for the fourth syntax to be 1, the third syntax need to be 1 and the first syntax needs to be 0.)
Regarding Claim 7: “The method of claim 1, wherein the format rule further specifies that the third syntax element is conditionally included in the SPS based on a value of a fifth syntax element indicating whether information of subpictures is included in the SPS.” (For example “sps_subpic_id_present_flag [fifth syntax] equal to 1 specifies that subpicture ID mapping is present in the SPS. … sps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag [third syntax] equal to 1 specifies that subpicture ID mapping is signalled” AAPA, Specification, Page 12, fourth and fifth paragraphs.)
Regarding Claim 8: “The method of claim 7, wherein the format rule further specifies that the value of the fifth syntax element is zero, which indicates that the information of the subpictures is omitted from the SPS and consequently each of pictures associated with the SPS is not split into multiple subpictures, and based on the value of the fifth syntax element being zero, the third syntax element is omitted from the SPS.” (For example “sps subpic id present_ flag equal to O specifies that subpicture ID mapping is not present in the SPS. … sps_subpic_id_signalling_present_flag [third syntax] equal to 1 specifies that subpicture ID mapping is signalled” AAPA, Specification, Page 12, fourth and fifth paragraphs.)
Regarding Claim 9: “The method of claim 8, wherein the format rule further specifies that when the third syntax element is omitted, a value of the third syntax element is inferred to be equal to 0.” (For example “When not present, the value of sps subpic id signalling_present_ flag [third syntax] is inferred to be equal to 0.” AAPA, Specification, Page 12, fourth and fifth paragraphs.)
Regarding Claim 10: “The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion comprises decoding the video from the bitstream.” (“This document is related to video coding technologies … any video coding standard or non-standard video codec that supports multi-layer video coding e.g., the being-developed Versatile Video Coding (VVC) … AVC Advanced Video Coding … HEVC High Efficiency Video Coding …” which represent AAPA video coding standards. See Specification, Paragraphs 29-30. Similarly, “"video coding" or "coding" may refer generically to video encoding and video decoding.” Chien, Paragraphs 33, 34. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 11: “The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion comprises encoding the video into the bitstream.” (“This document is related to video coding technologies … any video coding standard or non-standard video codec that supports multi-layer video coding e.g., the being-developed Versatile Video Coding (VVC) … AVC Advanced Video Coding … HEVC High Efficiency Video Coding …” which represent AAPA video coding standards. See Specification, Paragraphs 29-30. Similarly, “"video coding" or "coding" may refer generically to video encoding and video decoding.” Chien, Paragraphs 33, 34. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Claim 12: “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: …” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, and because prior art teaches: : “The video encoder 20 and the video decoder 30 each can be implemented as any of a variety of suitable encoder circuitry, such as one or more microprocessors, digital signal processors (DSPs), … When the methods are implemented partially in software, a device may store instructions for the software in a suitable, non-transitory computer-readable medium and execute the instructions in hardware using one or more processors to perform the methods of this disclosure” Chien, Paragraph 42 and statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Claim 14 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 4 in view of the Claim 12 rejection.
Claim 15: “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to: …” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 10.
Claim 16 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 4 in view of the Claim 15 rejection.
Claim 18: “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 rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, and because prior art teaches: “The computer-readable data storage medium may form part of a computer program product, which can include packaging materials. The computer-readable medium can comprise memory or data storage media,” Chien, Paragraph 148. Also note that storage of video data includes “storage of parameter sets in their respective table entries” where parameter sets are subject to syntax rules as noted above. HEVC Overview, Page 1861, Column 1, fourth Paragraph. See statements of motivation in Claim 1.
Also of note, "The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113(I). Thus, the medium storing a bitstream may be limited by the bitstream but it is not limited to performing the example method of generating the bitstream.
Claim 20 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 4 in view of the Claim 18 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sjoberg, Rickard, et al. "Overview of HEVC high-level syntax and reference picture management." IEEE transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology 22.12 (2012): 1858-1870. This reference describes features of HEVC which are similar to the feature of the VVC discussed in AAPA which are cited above.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights