CTNF 19/026,963 CTNF 91261 DETAILED ACTION The present Office action is in response to the application filing on 17 JANUARY 2025 and the preliminary amendment on 27 MAY 2025. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-fti AIA The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 01/17/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement is being considered by the Examiner. Response to Amendment Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-20 have been added. No claims have been canceled. Claims 1-20 are pending and herein examined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-fti The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-fti The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. 07-21-fti Claim s 7-19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2014/0003531 A1 (hereinafter “Coban”) in view of Bross et al., “High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) Text Specification Draft 8”, JCTVC-J1003_d7, Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, July 11-20 2012, Stockholm, Sweden (hereinafter “Bross”) . Regarding claim 7 , Coban discloses a system (FIG. 1, system 10 with source device 12) comprising: a memory configured to store data for a picture (FIG. 6 discloses memory 64 for storing pictures. [0113] discloses physical storage mediums for storing program code for coding a picture) ; and an encoder coupled to the memory (FIG. 1, video encoder 20. FIG. 6, video encoder 20 with memory 64. [0113-0114] describes a multiple processing means for implementing an encoder coupled to a physical storage medium for executing a program) and configurable to: divide the picture into a plurality of largest coding units (LCUs) (FIG. 3 discloses frames 160 and 170 divided into a plurality of LCUs 161 and grouped in tiles 162, 163, 172, and 173. [0067], “Frame 160 may be divided into multiple largest coding units (LCUs) 161.” [0088], “partitioning unit 35 partitions the data into video blocks. This partitioning may also include partitioning into slices, tiles, or other larger units, as wells as video block partitioning, e.g., according to a quadtree structure of LCUs and CUs”) ; partition the picture into a plurality of tiles, wherein each tile in the plurality of tiles includes a subset of LCUs of the plurality of LCUs (FIG. 3 discloses frames 160 and 170 divided into a plurality of LCUs 161 and grouped in tiles 162, 163, 172, and 173. [0067], “Two or more LCUs may be grouped into a rectangular-shaped tiles.” [0088], “partitioning unit 35 partitions the data into video blocks. This partitioning may also include partitioning into slices, tiles, or other larger units, as wells as video block partitioning, e.g., according to a quadtree structure of LCUs and CUs”) ; constrain a number of the plurality of tiles based on a maximum picture size; encode each subset of LCUs in a first raster scan order within the respective tile into a bit stream ([0068], “When the video encoder encodes a tile, the video encoder may encode the treeblocks (i.e., LCUs) within the tile in raster scan order.” FIG. 4 discloses video encoded output as a bitstream) ; and encode the plurality of tiles in a second raster scan order within the picture into the bit stream ([0068], “when the video encoder uses tiles, the video encoder may encode the tiles in raster scan order.” FIG. 4 discloses video encoded output as a bitstream). Coban fails to expressly disclose constrain a number of the plurality of tiles based on a maximum picture size . However, Bross teaches constrain a number of the plurality of tiles based on a maximum picture size (p. 203, Section A.1, “Each level specifies a set of limits on the values that may be taken by the syntax elements of this Recommendation | International Standard.” p. 206, Table A-1 discloses level limits including MaxLumaPS for limiting a maximum picture size, width, and height, MaxTileRows, and MaxTileCols. p. 207, Section A.4.2(h) discloses conforming the bitstream such that “num_tile_columns_minus1 shall be less than MaxTileCols and num_tile_rows_minus1 shall be less than MaxTileRows.” Note, Table A-1 associates an increasing picture size with an increasing number of tiles allowed; for instance, num_tile_columns_minus1 is to be less than MaxTileCols and defined in the range of 0 to PicWidthInCtbsY – 1, where PicWidthInCtbsY is constrained by the maximum number of samples in a picture. See , PPS RBSP semantics in p. 71). At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to constrain the number of tiles based on a picture size, as taught by Bross (Annex A), in Coban’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Coba’s invention, by incorporating Bross’ invention, to increase coding efficiency and enhance the robustness of network environments (p. 1, 0.1 Prologue) and to follow coding standards. Regarding claim 8 , Coban and Bross disclose every limitation of claim 7, as outlined above. Additionally, Coban discloses wherein the picture is part of a sequence of pictures ([0051], “A video sequence typically includes a series of video frames or pictures. A group of pictures (GOP) generally comprises a series of one or more of the video pictures.” FIG. 1 illustrates video source 18 providing video into video encoder 20). Coban fails to expressly disclose wherein the encoder is configurable to determine the maximum picture size using a level to which the sequence of pictures conforms . However, Bross teaches wherein the encoder is configurable to determine the maximum picture size using a level to which the sequence of pictures conforms (p. 76, Section 7.4.3, “general_level_idc indicates a level to which the coded video sequence conforms as specified in Annex A.” p. 203, Section A.1, “Each level specifies a set of limits on the values that may be taken by the syntax elements of this Recommendation | International Standard.” p. 206, Table A-1 includes MaxLumaPS, which is used for determining maximum picture parameters, including PicSizeInSamplesY, pic_width_in_luma_samples, and pic_height_in_luma_samples). The same motivation of claim 7 applies to claim 8. Regarding claim 9 , Coban and Bross disclose every limitation of claim 7, as outlined above. Additionally, Bross discloses wherein the encoder is configurable to constrain the number of the plurality of tiles to be less than a product of a maximum number of tile columns and a maximum number of tile rows (p. 76, Section 7.4.3, “general_level_idc indicates a level to which the coded video sequence conforms as specified in Annex A.” p. 203, Section A.1, “Each level specifies a set of limits on the values that may be taken by the syntax elements of this Recommendation | International Standard.” p. 207, Section A.4.2(h), “In bitstream conforming to the Main profile, num_tile_columns_minus1 shall be less than MaxTileCols and num_tile_rows_minus1 shall be less than MaxTileRows, where MaxTileCols and MaxTileRows are as specified in Table A-1.” Note, the total max tiles is equivalent to MaxTileRows * MaxTileCols). The same motivation of claim 7 applies to claim 9. Regarding claim 10 , Coban and Bross disclose every limitation of claim 9, as outlined above. Additionally, Coban discloses wherein the picture is part of a sequence of pictures ([0051], “A video sequence typically includes a series of video frames or pictures. A group of pictures (GOP) generally comprises a series of one or more of the video pictures.” FIG. 1 illustrates video source 18 providing video into video encoder 20). Coban fails to expressly disclose wherein the encoder is configurable to determine the maximum number of tile columns using a level to which the sequence of pictures conforms . However, Bross teaches wherein the encoder is configurable to determine the maximum number of tile columns using a level to which the sequence of pictures conforms (p. 76, Section 7.4.3, “general_level_idc indicates a level to which the coded video sequence conforms as specified in Annex A.” p. 203, Section A.1, “Each level specifies a set of limits on the values that may be taken by the syntax elements of this Recommendation | International Standard.” p. 207, Section A.4.2(h), “In bitstream conforming to the Main profile, num_tile_columns_minus1 shall be less than MaxTileCols and num_tile_rows_minus1 shall be less than MaxTileRows, where MaxTileCols and MaxTileRows are as specified in Table A-1”). The same motivation of claim 7 applies to claim 10. Regarding claim 11 , Coban and Bross disclose every limitation of claim 9, as outlined above. Additionally, Coban discloses wherein the picture is a part of a sequence of pictures ([0051], “A video sequence typically includes a series of video frames or pictures. A group of pictures (GOP) generally comprises a series of one or more of the video pictures.” FIG. 1 illustrates video source 18 providing video into video encoder 20). Coban fails to expressly disclose wherein the encoder is configurable to determine the maximum number of tile rows using a level to which the sequence of pictures conforms . However, Bross teaches wherein the encoder is configurable to determine the maximum number of tile rows using a level to which the sequence of pictures conforms (p. 76, Section 7.4.3, “general_level_idc indicates a level to which the coded video sequence conforms as specified in Annex A.” p. 203, Section A.1, “Each level specifies a set of limits on the values that may be taken by the syntax elements of this Recommendation | International Standard.” p. 207, Section A.4.2(h), “In bitstream conforming to the Main profile, num_tile_columns_minus1 shall be less than MaxTileCols and num_tile_rows_minus1 shall be less than MaxTileRows, where MaxTileCols and MaxTileRows are as specified in Table A-1”). The same motivation of claim 7 applies to claim 11. Regarding claim 12 , Coban and Bross disclose every limitation of claim 7, as outlined above. Additionally, Bross discloses wherein the encoder is configurable to constrain the number of the plurality of tiles based on a size of the picture in samples (p. 203, Section A.1, “Each level specifies a set of limits on the values that may be taken by the syntax elements of this Recommendation | International Standard.” p. 206, Table A-1 discloses level limits including MaxLumaPS for limiting a maximum picture size, width, and height, MaxTileRows, and MaxTileCols. p. 207, Section A.4.2(h) discloses conforming the bitstream such that “num_tile_columns_minus1 shall be less than MaxTileCols and num_tile_rows_minus1 shall be less than MaxTileRows.” Note, Table A-1 associates an increasing picture size with an increasing number of tiles allowed; for instance, num_tile_columns_minus1 is to be less than MaxTileCols and defined in the range of 0 to PicWidthInCtbsY – 1, where PicWidthInCtbsY is constrained by the maximum number of samples in a picture. See , PPS RBSP semantics in p. 71). The same motivation of claim 7 applies to claim 12. Regarding claim 13 , Coban and Bross disclose every limitation of claim 7, as outlined above. Additionally, Bross discloses wherein the encoder is configurable to constrain the number of the plurality of tiles based on a coded picture buffer removal time (p. 203, Section A.1, “Each level specifies a set of limits on the values that may be taken by the syntax elements of this Recommendation | International Standard.” pp. 204-206 describes level constraints, including MaxCPB in Table A-1, which has a corresponding MaxLumaPS, MaxTileRows, and MaxTileCols. Additionally, CPB removal time is disclosed as CPB having t r,n (n)-t r (n-1) constrained with Table A-1). The same motivation of claim 7 applies to claim 13. Regarding claim 14 , Coban and Bross disclose every limitation of claim 7, as outlined above. Additionally, Bross discloses wherein the encoder is configurable to constrain the number of the plurality of tiles based on a difference between a coded picture buffer removal time and a nominal coded picture buffer removal time (p. 203, Section A.1, “Each level specifies a set of limits on the values that may be taken by the syntax elements of this Recommendation | International Standard.” pp. 204-206 describes level constraints, including MaxCPB in Table A-1, which has a corresponding MaxLumaPS, MaxTileRows, and MaxTileCols. Additionally, CPB removal time is disclosed as CPB having t r,n (n)-t r (n-1) constrained with Table A-1). The same motivation of claim 7 applies to claim 14. Regarding claim 15 , the limitations are the same as those in claim 7 . Therefore, the same rationale of claim 7 applies to claim 15. Regarding claim 16 , the limitations are the same as those in claim 8 . Therefore, the same rationale of claim 8 applies to claim 16. Regarding claim 17 , the limitations are the same as those in claims 9-11 . Therefore, the same rationale of claims 9-11 applies to claim 17. Regarding claim 18 , the limitations are the same as those in claim 12 . Therefore, the same rationale of claim 12 applies to claim 18. Regarding claim 19 , the limitations are the same as those in claim 14 . Therefore, the same rationale of claim 14 applies to claim 19 . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,785,482, claims 1-40 of U.S. Patent No. 11,202,071, claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,375,190, claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,716,472, and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,516 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is broader in scope and therefore anticipated by each of the U.S. Patents listed above . 08-36 AIA Claim s 8-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,785,482, claims 1-40 of U.S. Patent No. 11,202,071, claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,375,190, claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,716,472, and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,516 in view of Bross et al., “High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) Text Specification Draft 8”, JCTVC-J1003_d7, Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, July 11-20 2012, Stockholm, Sweden (hereinafter “Bross”). The subject matter of claims 8-20 contain subject matter non-overlapping in scope with each of the U.S. Patents; however, see the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection above for how Bross discloses the subject matter. The same motivation in the prior-art rejection above applies. All other subject matter is anticipated by each of the U.S. Patents . Allowable Subject Matter Claim 20 is dependent upon a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and if incorporated into each of the independent claims (i.e., claims 7 and 15) along with a terminal disclaimer, then all claims will be allowable. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-0677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 AM - 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 at 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. /STUART D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2481 Application/Control Number: 19/026,963 Page 2 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 19/026,963 Page 4 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 19/026,963 Page 5 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 19/026,963 Page 6 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 19/026,963 Page 7 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 19/026,963 Page 8 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 19/026,963 Page 9 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 19/026,963 Page 10 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 19/026,963 Page 11 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 19/026,963 Page 12 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 19/026,963 Page 13 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 19/026,963 Page 14 Art Unit: 2481
Prosecution Insights