DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Specification/Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it appears to describe a parent application, but does not summarize the claims of the instant disclosure. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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) 1-3, 6, 8-9, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WANG (US 2014/0086303).
Regarding claim 1: WANG teaches a system comprising: a receiver configured to receive a bit stream including a coded representation of a picture [¶0003 teaches: The video devices may transmit, receive, encode, decode, and/or store digital video]; and a decoder coupled to the receiver and configured configurable to: decode a first syntax element in the bit stream [¶0007 teaches: a device may perform a decoding process as part of a bitstream conformance test], wherein the first syntax element specifies a number of layers including a first layer [¶0007 teaches: The target set of layer identifiers contains values of layer identifier syntax elements]; and decode a second syntax element in the bit stream [¶0029 teaches: the video encoder may signal different sets of HRD parameters; and video encoder may signal sets of HRD parameters in a VPS or the video encoder may signal sets of HRD parameters in a SPS], wherein the second syntax element specifies a buffer size when the first layer is not a target layer [¶[0034] In HEVC, a SPS may include an array of syntax elements denoted as sps_max_dec_pic_buffering[i], where i ranges from 0 to the maximum number of temporal layers in the bitstream. sps_max_dec_pic_buffering[i] indicates the maximum required size of the DPB when a highest temporal identifier (HighestTid) is equal to i. sps_max_dec_pic_buffering[i] indicates the required size in terms of units of picture storage buffers.].
Regarding claim 2: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
In addition, WANG teaches wherein the first syntax element specifies a maximum non-target buffer size [¶0337 teaches: the device may decode, from a SPS, an array of syntax elements (sps_max_dec_pic_buffering[ ]), that each indicate a maximum required size of a DPB of the HRD].
Regarding claim 3: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
In addition, WANG teaches wherein the decoder is configurable to determine whether the decoder has sufficient buffer space to decode a target bit stream using the buffer size specified by the second syntax element [¶0337 teaches: the device may decode, from a SPS, an array of syntax elements (sps_max_dec_pic_buffering[ ]), that each indicate a maximum required size of a DPB of the HRD].
Regarding claim 6: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
In addition, WANG teaches wherein the bit stream is a scalable bit stream including a plurality of layers including the first layer [¶0099 teaches: Furthermore, the variable TargetDecHighestTid identifies the highest temporal sub-layer to be decoded. A temporal sub-layer is a temporal scalable layer of a temporal scalable bitstream consisting of VCL NAL units with a particular value of TemporalId and the associated non-VCL NAL units.].
Regarding claim 8: the claim is merely a method of initiating encoding and distribution the encoded video sequence to a decoder for decoding using the system of claim 1. WANG teaches coding and decoding [video encoding and decoding (i.e., encoding and/or decoding of video data), ¶0002]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 applies equally to this claim.
Regarding claim 9: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 8.
In addition, WANG teaches further comprising displaying the decoded video sequence [¶0050 teaches: In general, display device 32 displays decoded video data.].
Regarding claim 17: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 8.
In addition, WANG teaches wherein the encoded video sequence includes a scalable bit stream including a plurality of layers including the first layer [¶0021 teaches: video data of the bitstream may be divided into a set of layers. For each of the layers, data in a lower layer may be decoded without reference to data in any higher layer.].
Regarding claim 18: the essence of the claim is taught in the rejection of claims 8 and 9. Therefore, WANG teaches the rejection of claim 18 through this combination.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG in view of LU et al., (From IDS: US 2013/0156101).
Regarding claim 5: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 1.
However, it does not appear that WANG explicitly teaches wherein the decoder is configurable to: determine the target layer; and decode each layer of the bit stream that is at or below the target layer.
In a related field of endeavor, LU teaches wherein the decoder is configurable to: determine the target layer; and decode each layer of the bit stream that is at or below the target layer [¶0094 teaches: Thus, buffers are filled and passed to the accelerator for the respective layers in the order that layers appear in the bitstream of encoded data. For example, buffers are filled and passed for a base layer, then filled and passed for a first enhancement layer, then filled and passed for a second enhancement layer, and so on, up to the target layer.].
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate LU’s teaching of decoding layers below the target layer into WANG’s decoder system for the benefit, as taught by LU, of taking advantage of additional information before sending bitstream through for decoding. [LU, ¶0045]
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG in view of HANNUKSELA (From IDS: US 2007/0183494).
Regarding claim 7: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 6.
However, it does not appear that WANG explicitly teaches wherein the decoder is configurable to: decode a respective highest level value from the scalable bit stream for each of the plurality of layers, wherein the respective highest level value corresponds to a highest level used for inter-layer prediction by each of the plurality of layers.
In a related field of endeavor, HANNUKSELA teaches wherein the decoder is configurable to: decode a respective highest level value from the scalable bit stream for each of the plurality of layers, wherein the respective highest level value corresponds to a highest level used for inter-layer prediction by each of the plurality of layers [¶0046 teaches: In this application, the term "layer" refers to a set of pictures having identical values of temporal_level, dependency_id and quality_level, respectively. To decode and playback an enhancement layer, typically the lower layers including the base layer should also be available, because the lower layers may be used for inter-layer prediction, directly or indirectly, in coding of the enhancement layer.].
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate HANNUKSELA’s teaching of decoding a respective highest level value from the scalable bit stream into WANG’s decoder system for the benefit, as taught by HANNUKSELA, when decoding pictures from upper layers having reference pictures on lower layers, e.g. on the base layer, then a new, more optimized decoding algorithm is used. [HANNUKSELA, ¶0020]
Claim(s) 10-15 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG in view of LEE et al., (US 2010/0080285).
Regarding claim 10: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 8.
However, it does not appear that WANG explicitly teaches wherein the video sequence includes real-time video.
In a related field of endeavor, LEE teaches wherein the video sequence includes real-time video [¶0050 teaches: Video source 18 of source device 12 may include a video capture device, such as a video camera (i.e. talking real-time video)].
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate LEE’s teaching of a video source into WANG’s decoder system for the benefit, as taught by LEE, a video encoding and decoding system configured to perform efficient coding techniques. [LEE, ¶0049]
Regarding claim 11: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 8.
However, it does not appear that WANG explicitly teaches wherein the video sequence includes archived video.
In a related field of endeavor, LEE teaches wherein the video sequence includes archived video [¶0050 teaches: a video archive containing previously captured video].
The motivation to combine is the same as for claim 10. [See teaching above]
Regarding claim 12: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 8.
However, it does not appear that WANG explicitly teaches wherein the video sequence includes a combination of video from a video content provider and computer-generated graphics.
In a related field of endeavor, LEE teaches wherein the video sequence includes a combination of video [¶0050 teaches: a combination of live or archived video and computer generated video] from a video content provider [¶0050 teaches: a video feed from a video content provider] and computer-generated graphics [¶0050: teaches: ideo source 18 may generate computer graphics-based data as the source video].
The motivation to combine is the same as for claim 10. [See teaching above]
Regarding claim 13: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 8.
However, it does not appear that WANG explicitly teaches wherein the video sequence includes a combination of real-time video and computer-generated graphics.
In a related field of endeavor, LEE teaches wherein the video sequence includes a combination of real-time video and computer-generated graphics [¶0050 teaches: a combination of live or archived video and computer generated video].
The motivation to combine is the same as for claim 10. [See teaching above]
Regarding claim 14: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 8.
However, it does not appear that WANG explicitly teaches wherein distributing the encoded video sequence includes streaming the encoded video sequence over the communication channel.
In a related field of endeavor, LEE teaches wherein distributing the encoded video sequence includes streaming the encoded video sequence over the communication channel [¶0049 teaches: Communication channel 16 generally represents any suitable communication medium, or collection of different communication media, for transmitting encoded video data from source device 12 to destination device 14.].
The motivation to combine is the same as for claim 10. [See teaching above]
Regarding claim 15: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 8.
However, it does not appear that WANG explicitly teaches wherein the communication channel includes a wide area network [¶0049 teaches: Communication channel 16 may form part of a packet-based network, such as a local area network, a wide-area network].
In a related field of endeavor, LEE teaches wherein the communication channel includes a wide area network.
The motivation to combine is the same as for claim 10. [See teaching above]
Regarding claim 19: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 18.
However, it does not appear that WANG explicitly teaches wherein the video sequence includes a combination of video from a video content provider and computer-generated graphics.
In a related field of endeavor, LEE teaches wherein the video sequence includes a combination of video [¶0050 teaches: a combination of live or archived video and computer generated video] from a video content provider [¶0050 teaches: a video feed from a video content provider] and computer-generated graphics [¶0050: teaches: video source 18 may generate computer graphics-based data as the source video].
The motivation to combine is the same as for claim 10. [See teaching above]
Regarding claim 20: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 18.
However, it does not appear that WANG explicitly teaches wherein the video sequence includes a combination of real-time video and computer-generated graphics.
In a related field of endeavor, LEE teaches wherein the video sequence includes a combination of real-time video and computer-generated graphics [¶0050 teaches: a combination of live or archived video and computer generated video].
The motivation to combine is the same as for claim 10. [See teaching above]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but contain allowable subject matter and would be allowable if the double patenting rejection is overcome and the claims are rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Prior art not relied upon: Please refer to the references listed in an attached PTO-892 and that are not relied upon for the claim rejections detailed above. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
In particular, WANG et al., (US 2008/0260034) teaches multiple reference layer prediction signaling techniques;
WANG et al., (US 2011/0002397) teaches method for coding and decoding scalable video and apparatus using same;
HAQUE et al., (US 2019/0273932) teaches a method and apparatus for coding;
KANG et al., (US 2024/0205428) teaches multi-layer encoding and decoding; and
KWON et al., (US 2025/0168372) teaches a system a method for implementing efficient decoded buffer management in multi-view video coding.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marnie Matt whose telephone number is (303)297-4255. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30-5:00.
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, Jay Patel can be reached on 571-272-2988. 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.
/MARNIE A MATT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485