DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. This patent application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/702,117 filed Mar. 23, 2022, which is a continuation of International Application No. PCT/US2020/051826 filed on Sep. 21, 2020, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/905,147 filed Sep. 24, 2019, each of which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 01/15/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
4. 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
5. Claims 1-19 are rejected on are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S Patent No. 12231661 (U.S Application 17/702,117) in view of Wang et al. (US 2014/0086344A1) (hereinafter Wang). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is merely in the terminology used in both sets of claims.
Please see further example below. Differences are bolded in the following comparison table.
Current application 19/022,817
Conflict application 17/702,117
Claim 1
Claim 1
A method implemented by a video decoder, comprising:
receiving a bitstream comprising a coded picture and a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message, wherein the SEI message includes coded picture buffer (CPB) parameters corresponding to decoding unit (DU)-based hypothetical reference decoder (HRD) operations on sublayers; and
decoding the coded picture from the bitstream to obtain a decoded picture, wherein the CPB parameters comprise du_cpb_removal_delay_increment_minus1[i][j], and wherein the du_cpb_removal_delay_increment_minus1[i][j] plus 1 specifies a duration, in units of clock sub-ticks, between nominal CPB removal times of an (i+1)-th decoding unit and an i-th decoding unit, in decoding order, in an access unit (AU) associated with the SEI message when a maximum HRD temporal identifier (Htid) i equal to j, and wherein the du_cpb_removal_delay_increment_minus1[i][j] syntax is as follows: TABLE-US-00003 for( i = 0; i <= num_decoding_units_minus1; i++ ) { num_nalus_in_du_minus1[ i ] ue(v) if( !du_common_cpb_removal_delay_flag && i < num_decoding_units_minus1 ) for( j = TemporalId; j < pt_max_sub_layers_minus1; j++ ) du_cpb_removal_delay_increment_minus1[ i ][ j ] u(v) }
A method implemented by a video decoder, comprising:
receiving a bitstream comprising a coded picture and a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message, wherein the SEI message includes coded picture buffer (CPB) parameters corresponding to decoding unit (DU)-based hypothetical reference decoder (HRD) operations on sublayers, wherein each of the sublayers comprises a temporal scalable layer including video coding layer (VCL) network abstraction layer (NAL) units with a particular value of a temporal identifier (TemporalId) and associated non-VCL NAL units; and
decoding the coded picture from the bitstream to obtain a decoded picture.
The conflicting application discloses all subject matter of the claimed invention with the exception of “wherein the CPB parameters comprise du_cpb_removal_delay_increment_minus1[i][j], and wherein the du_cpb_removal_delay_increment_minus1[i][j] plus 1 specifies a duration, in units of clock sub-ticks, between nominal CPB removal times of an (i+1)-th decoding unit and an i-th decoding unit, in decoding order, in an access unit (AU) associated with the SEI message when a maximum HRD temporal identifier (Htid) i equal to j, and wherein the du_cpb_removal_delay_increment_minus1[i][j] syntax is as follows: TABLE-US-00003 for( i = 0; i <= num_decoding_units_minus1; i++ ) { num_nalus_in_du_minus1[ i ] ue(v) if( !du_common_cpb_removal_delay_flag && i < num_decoding_units_minus1 ) for( j = TemporalId; j < pt_max_sub_layers_minus1; j++ ) du_cpb_removal_delay_increment_minus1[ i ][ j ] u(v) }”
However, Wang from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses “wherein the CPB parameters comprise du_cpb_removal_delay_increment_minus1[i][j], and wherein the du_cpb_removal_delay_increment_minus1[i][j] plus 1 specifies a duration, in units of clock sub-ticks, between nominal CPB removal times of an (i+1)-th decoding unit and an i-th decoding unit, in decoding order, in an access unit (AU) associated with the SEI message when a maximum HRD temporal identifier (Htid) i equal to j, and wherein the du_cpb_removal_delay_increment_minus1[i][j] syntax is as follows: TABLE-US-00003 for( i = 0; i <= num_decoding_units_minus1; i++ ) { num_nalus_in_du_minus1[ i ] ue(v) if( !du_common_cpb_removal_delay_flag && i < num_decoding_units_minus1 ) for( j = TemporalId; j < pt_max_sub_layers_minus1; j++ ) du_cpb_removal_delay_increment_minus1[ i ][ j ] u(v) } (e.g., see Tables 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by the conflicting application to add the teachings of Wang as above, in order to provide techniques for signaling and derivation of coded picture buffer removal times in video coding (see paragraph 0006: Wang).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 1-19 will be allowable if Double Patenting Rejection is overcome by filing a Terminal Disclaimer.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ON MUNG whose telephone number is (571) 270-7557 and whose direct fax number is (571) 270-8557. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am - 6pm (ET).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on (571)272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ON S MUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486