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 .
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17850449 (reference application) to which the present Application claims priority. This rejection in on the basis of claims of the reference application submitted on 07/08/2025.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17850449 (reference application) to which the present Application claims priority.
Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of copending Application No. 17850449 (reference application) to which the present Application claims priority.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of copending Application No. 17850449 (reference application) to which the present Application claims priority.
Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of copending Application No. 17850449 (reference application) to which the present Application claims priority.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of copending Application No. 17850449 (reference application) to which the present Application claims priority.
Claim 18 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of copending Application No. 17850449 (reference application) to which the present Application claims priority.
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of copending Application No. 17850449 (reference application) to which the present Application claims priority.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are anticipated by the claims cited in the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-20 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 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 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).
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).
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 1-20 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, (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 bitstream conforms to a format rule, 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 bitstream conforms to a format rule” appears to state an intended result but does not limit the claimed method to performing a particular step or providing particular data for processing, and thus the method reads on the prior art cited for the rest of the claim.
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.)
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 2: “The method of claim 1, 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.)
Regarding Claim 3: “The method of claim 2, 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 2, 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 2, 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 2, 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 2, 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.)
Claims 13-14 are rejected for reasons stated for Claims 2 and 4 respectively 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.
Claims 16-17 are rejected for reasons stated for Claims 2 and 4 respectively 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.
Claims 19-20 are rejected for reasons stated for Claims 2 and 4 respectively in view of the Claim 18 rejection.
Conclusion
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