DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 03/26/2025. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant's claim for provisional application 62/913,730 filed on 10/10/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/05/2025, 03/14/2025 and 05/30/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 Application No. 17/716,349. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is merely in the terminology used in both sets of claims. The table below shows only example of how independent claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of U.S. Application No. 17/716,349.
Instant Application
U.S. Application No. 17/716,349
Claim 1: A method of coding implemented by a decoding device, comprising: parsing a bitstream to obtain a flag from a picture header of the bitstream, wherein the flag indicates that all coded slices of a current picture have a slice type equal to 2 (I), or one or more coded slices in the current picture have a slice type equal to 0 (B) or 1 (P); when the flag indicates that all coded slices of the current picture have the slice type equal to 2 (I), a syntax element designed for inter prediction is not contained in the picture header of the bitstream and is inferred to be equal to a value of a syntax element designed for inter prediction in a sequence parameter set (SPS) of the bitstream; or when the flag indicates that one or more coded slices in the current picture have the slice type equal to 0 (B) or 1 (P), obtaining a syntax element designed for inter prediction from the picture header.
Claim 1: A method of coding implemented by a decoding device, comprising: parsing a bitstream to obtain a first flag from a picture header of the bitstream, wherein the first flag indicates whether a current picture is I picture; and when the first flag indicates that the current picture is I picture, determining that a syntax element used for inter prediction is not signaled in the picture header and is inferred to be equal to a value of a syntax element for inter prediction in a sequence parameter set (SPS) of the bitstream; when the first flag indicates that the current picture is P or B picture and a second flag indicates that partition constraint parameters are present in the picture header, obtaining a syntax element used for inter prediction from the picture header; wherein the second flag is a partition constraints override flag.
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) 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokumo (US 2009/0262837) in view of Nakamura (US 2016/0323575).
Regarding claim 1, Tokumo discloses the following claim limitations: a method of coding implemented by a decoding device, comprising: parsing a bitstream to obtain a flag from a picture header of the bitstream, wherein the flag indicates that all coded slices of a current picture have a slice type equal to 2 (I), or one or more coded slices in the current picture have a slice type equal to 0 (B) or 1 (P) (Tokumo, paragraph 8 discloses If the picture header is detected, it is judged whether the picture header is an I-picture (S33).
Tokumo does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations: when the flag indicates that all coded slices of the current picture have the slice type equal to 2 (I), a syntax element designed for inter prediction is not contained in the picture header of the bitstream and is inferred to be equal to a value of a syntax element designed for inter prediction in a sequence parameter set (SPS) of the bitstream; or when the flag indicates that one or more coded slices in the current picture have the slice type equal to 0 (B) or 1 (P), obtaining a syntax element designed for inter prediction from the picture header.
However, in the same field of endeavor Nakamura discloses more explicitly the following: when the flag indicates that all coded slices of the current picture have the slice type equal to 2 (I), a syntax element designed for inter prediction is not contained in the picture header of the bitstream and is inferred to be equal to a value of a syntax element designed for inter prediction in a sequence parameter set (SPS) of the bitstream; or when the flag indicates that one or more coded slices in the current picture have the slice type equal to 0 (B) or 1 (P), obtaining a syntax element designed for inter prediction from the picture header (Examiner’s note: the claim language recites “or” which implies only one function may be performed; Nakamura paragraph 149 discloses When the slice type is the B-slice, a syntax element inter_pred_flag[x0][y0] for identifying an inter-prediction mode is provided, and L0 prediction (Pred_L0), L1 prediction (Pred_L1), and bi-prediction (Pred_BI) are identified by the syntax element).
It would have been obvious to one the ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Tokumo with Nakamura to create the system of determining if a current slice picture is an I-picture with obtaining a syntax element used in inter prediction when the current picture is a B-slice.
The reasoning being is to provide a moving picture coding and decoding technique of reducing a coding amount of coding information to improve coding efficiency (Nakamura, paragraph 18).
Regarding claim 8, Tokumo and Nakamura discloses a method of coding implemented by an encoding device, comprising: encoding a flag into a picture header of a bitstream, wherein the flag indicates that all coded slices of a current picture have a slice type equal to 2 (I), or one or more coded slices in the current picture have a slice type equal to 0 (B) or 1 (P); (Tokumo, paragraph 8 discloses If the picture header is detected, it is judged whether the picture header is an I-picture (S33),
encoding a syntax element designed for inter prediction in the picture header, at least when the flag indicates that the one or more coded slices in the current picture have the slice type equal to 0 (B) or 1 (P); when the flag indicates that all coded slices of the current picture have the slice type equal to 2 (I), the syntax element designed for inter prediction is not encoded into the picture header of the bitstream and is inferred to be equal to a value of a syntax element designed for inter prediction in a sequence parameter set (SPS) of the bitstream (Examiner’s note: the claim language recites “or” which implies only one function may be performed; Nakamura paragraph 149 discloses When the slice type is the B-slice, a syntax element inter_pred_flag[x0][y0] for identifying an inter-prediction mode is provided, and L0 prediction (Pred_L0), L1 prediction (Pred_L1), and bi-prediction (Pred_BI) are identified by the syntax element). The motivation that was utilized in claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 8.
Examiner’s note:
Machine readable media: when determining the scope of a claim directed to a computer-readable medium containing certain programming, the examiner should first look to the relationship between the programming and the intended computer system. Where the programming performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated, a functional relationship will be found. For instance, a claim to computer-readable medium programmed with attribute data objects that perform the function of facilitating retrieval, addition, and removal of information in the intended computer system, establishes a functional relationship such that the claimed attribute data objects are given patentable weight. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035. However, where the claim as a whole is directed to conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system, and/or the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. For example, a claim to a memory stick containing tables of batting averages, or tracks of recorded music, utilizes the intended computer system merely as a support for the information. Such claims are directed toward conveying meaning to the human reader rather than towards establishing a functional relationship between recorded data and the computer. See section 2111.05 of MPEP.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Comer (US 2005/0185937).
Regarding claim 15, Comer discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream that, when decoded by a decoding device, is used by the decoding device to generate a video, the bitstream comprising: a picture header, wherein the picture header includes a flag, wherein the flag indicates that all coded slices of a current picture have a slice type equal to 2 (I), or one or more coded slices in the current picture have a slice type equal to 0 (B) or 1 (P); wherein when the flag indicates that the one or more coded slices in the current picture have the slice type equal to 0 (B) or 1 (P), the decoding device is configured to parse the picture header to obtain a syntax element designed for inter prediction; when the flag indicates that all coded slices of the current picture have the slice type equal to 2 (I), the syntax element designed for inter prediction is not contained in the picture header and the decoding device is configured to infer a value of the syntax element designed for inter prediction to be equal to a value of a syntax element designed for inter prediction in a sequence parameter set (SPS) of the bitstream (Examiner’s note: the “non-transitory computer readable medium” does not establish a functional relationship between the recorded bitstream data and the computer readable medium, therefore the claim will be interpreted as a tangible device being able to store bitstream data; Comer, paragraph 29 discloses the base data bitstream can be recorded onto the DVD as a base layer and assigned a stream identification of 0xE0… the enhancement data bitstream can be recorded onto the DVD as an enhancement layer and assigned a stream identification of 0xBF, 0xFA, 0xFB, 0xFC, 0xFD or 0xFE).
Regarding claim 16, Comer discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 15, wherein the syntax element designed for inter prediction includes pic_log2_diff_min_qt_min_cb_inter_slice, wherein the pic_log2_diff_min_qt_min_cb_inter_slice specifies a difference between a base 2 logarithm of a minimum size in luma samples of a luma leaf block resulting from quadtree splitting of a coding tree unit (CTU) and a base 2 logarithm of a minimum luma coding block size in luma samples for luma coding units (CUs) in the slices with P or B picture associated with the picture header; or wherein when the pic_log2_diff_min_qt_min_cb_inter_slice is not present in the picture header of the bitstream, the value of the pic_log2_diff_min_qt_min_cb_luma is inferred to be equal to sps_log2_diff_min_qt_min_cb_inter_slice (Examiner’s note: the “non-transitory computer readable medium” does not establish a functional relationship between the recorded bitstream data and the computer readable medium, therefore the claim will be interpreted as a tangible device being able to store bitstream data; Comer, paragraph 29 discloses the base data bitstream can be recorded onto the DVD as a base layer and assigned a stream identification of 0xE0… the enhancement data bitstream can be recorded onto the DVD as an enhancement layer and assigned a stream identification of 0xBF, 0xFA, 0xFB, 0xFC, 0xFD or 0xFE).
Regarding claim 17, Comer discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 15, wherein the syntax element for inter designed prediction includes pic_max_mtt_hierarchy_depth_inter_slice, wherein the pic_max_mtt_hierarchy_depth_inter_slice specifies a maximum hierarchy depth for coding units resulting from multi-type tree splitting of a quadtree leaf in slices; or wherein when the pic_max_mtt_hierarchy_depth_inter_slice is not present in the picture header of the bitstream, the value of the pic_max_mtt_hierarchy_depth_inter_slice is inferred to be equal to sps_max_mtt_hierarchy_depth_inter_slice (Examiner’s note: the “non-transitory computer readable medium” does not establish a functional relationship between the recorded bitstream data and the computer readable medium, therefore the claim will be interpreted as a tangible device being able to store bitstream data; Comer, paragraph 29 discloses the base data bitstream can be recorded onto the DVD as a base layer and assigned a stream identification of 0xE0… the enhancement data bitstream can be recorded onto the DVD as an enhancement layer and assigned a stream identification of 0xBF, 0xFA, 0xFB, 0xFC, 0xFD or 0xFE).
Regarding claim 18, Comer discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 17, wherein when the pic_max_mtt_hierarchy_depth_inter_slice is not equal to 0, the syntax element designed for inter prediction further includes pic_log2_diff_max_bt_min_qt_inter_slice, wherein the pic_log2_diff_max_bt_min_qt_inter_slice specifies a difference between a base 2 logarithm of a maximum size (width or height) in luma samples of a luma coding block that can be split using a binary split and a base 2 logarithm of a minimum size (width or height) in luma samples of a luma leaf block resulting from quadtree splitting of a CTU in the slices; or wherein when the pic_log2_diff_max_bt_min_qt_inter_slice is not present in the picture header of the bitstream, the value of the pic_log2_diff_max_bt_min_qt_inter_slice is inferred to be equal to sps_log2_diff_max_bt_min_qt_inter_slice (Examiner’s note: the “non-transitory computer readable medium” does not establish a functional relationship between the recorded bitstream data and the computer readable medium, therefore the claim will be interpreted as a tangible device being able to store bitstream data; Comer, paragraph 29 discloses the base data bitstream can be recorded onto the DVD as a base layer and assigned a stream identification of 0xE0… the enhancement data bitstream can be recorded onto the DVD as an enhancement layer and assigned a stream identification of 0xBF, 0xFA, 0xFB, 0xFC, 0xFD or 0xFE).
Regarding claim 19, Comer discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 17, wherein when the pic_max_mtt_hierarchy_depth_inter_slice is not equal to 0, the syntax element designed for inter prediction further includes pic_log2_diff_max_tt_min_qt_inter_slice, wherein the pic_log2_diff_max_tt_min_qt_inter_slice specifies a difference between a base 2 logarithm of a maximum size (width or height) in luma samples of a luma coding block that can be split using a ternary split and a base 2 logarithm of a minimum size (width or height) in luma samples of a luma leaf block resulting from quadtree splitting of a CTU in slices; or wherein when the pic_log2_diff_max_tt_min_qt_inter_slice is not present in the picture header of the bitstream, the value of the pic_log2_diff_max_tt_min_qt_inter_slice is inferred to be equal to sps_log2_diff_max_tt_min_qt_inter_slice (Examiner’s note: the “non-transitory computer readable medium” does not establish a functional relationship between the recorded bitstream data and the computer readable medium, therefore the claim will be interpreted as a tangible device being able to store bitstream data; Comer, paragraph 29 discloses the base data bitstream can be recorded onto the DVD as a base layer and assigned a stream identification of 0xE0… the enhancement data bitstream can be recorded onto the DVD as an enhancement layer and assigned a stream identification of 0xBF, 0xFA, 0xFB, 0xFC, 0xFD or 0xFE).
Regarding claim 20, Comer discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 15, wherein the syntax element designed for inter prediction includes pic_cu_qp_delta_subdiv_inter_slice, wherein the pic_cu_qp_delta_subdiv_inter_slice specifies a maximum cbSubdiv value of coding units that in inter slice convey cu_qp_delta_abs and cu_qp_delta_sign_flag; or wherein when the pic_cu_qp_delta_subdiv_inter_slice is not present in the picture header of the bitstream, the value of the pic_cu_qp_delta_subdiv_inter_slice is inferred to be equal to 0 (Examiner’s note: the “non-transitory computer readable medium” does not establish a functional relationship between the recorded bitstream data and the computer readable medium, therefore the claim will be interpreted as a tangible device being able to store bitstream data; Comer, paragraph 29 discloses the base data bitstream can be recorded onto the DVD as a base layer and assigned a stream identification of 0xE0… the enhancement data bitstream can be recorded onto the DVD as an enhancement layer and assigned a stream identification of 0xBF, 0xFA, 0xFB, 0xFC, 0xFD or 0xFE).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 and 9-14 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY T JEAN BAPTISTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5PM EST.
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, William Vaughn can be reached on 571-272-3922. 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.
/JERRY T JEAN BAPTISTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481