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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130101035 A1 Wang; Ye-Kui et al. (hereafter Wang), and further in view of US 20210160497 A1 Lee.
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses A method of decoding a video (Fig.1), the method comprising: obtaining, from a bitstream, a current picture of the video, wherein the current picture is partitioned into a plurality of tiles (Fig.7, [07]); determining that the current picture is associated with a rectangular slice type (Fig.5, [121], [125], the syntax element representing the type of tile group, the slice, for a picture would be determined); parsing, from the bitstream, a flag representing whether a number of slices in the current picture is one ([62], [124]-[126], decapsulation unit parses encoded input SPS carrying tile grouping information to obtain bitwise flags such as num_tile_groups_minus2 or NumTileGroups), wherein a value of the flag is one of: a first value representing that the number of slices in the current picture is one ([126]), or a second value representing that the number of slices in the current picture is greater than one([127]-[131]); determining whether to parse slice configuration information from the bitstream based on the flag ([62], decapsulation is the parsing process based on tile group information such as NumTileGroups) ,
Wang fails to disclose wherein determining whether to parse slice configuration information from the bitstream comprises at least one of: responsive to determining that the number of slices in the current picture is one, refraining from parsing the slice configuration information from the bitstream, or responsive to determining that the number of slices in the current picture is greater than one, parsing the slice configuration information from the bitstream; and decoding, from the bitstream, the video based on the determination whether to the parse slice configuration information from the bitstream.
However, Lee teaches wherein determining whether to parse slice configuration information from the bitstream comprises at least one of ([119]): responsive to determining that the number of slices in the current picture is one, refraining from parsing the slice configuration information from the bitstream, or responsive to determining that the number of slices in the current picture is greater than one, parsing the slice configuration information from the bitstream ([08], a firs slice being a last is a single slice that would omit being parsed, if the first one being not a last means there are more slices that would lead to parsing); and decoding, from the bitstream, the video based on the determination whether to the parse slice configuration information from the bitstream ([119]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of decoding a video disclosed by Wang to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Lee, in order to improve encoding/decoding efficiency, as identified by Lee.
Regarding claims 2, 6, 10, Lee teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, based on the flag, that the number of slices in the current picture is greater than one; and responsive to determining that the number of slices in the current picture is greater than one, parsing the slice configuration information from the bitstream ([08]).
Regarding claims 3, 7, 11, Wang discloses The method of claim 2, where the slice configuration information comprises syntax representing an index of a tile included in one of the slices ([123]).
Regarding claims 4, 8, 12, Lee teaches The method of claim 2, wherein the slice configuration information comprises syntax representing a difference between a first index of a first tile and a second index of a second tile, wherein the first tile and the second tile are included in one of the slices (Fig.31, [3921]).
Regarding claims 5, 9, see the rejection for claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: WO 2010000693 A2, US 20220377327 A1, CA 2908007 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY Y. LI whose telephone number is (571)270-3671. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday (8:30 AM- 4:30 PM) 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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
/TRACY Y. LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487