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 .
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kadono et al. (Pub. No. US 2004/0076237 A1).
Regarding claims 11-15, Kadono discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program ([0247] recording a program implementing the steps of … method to a floppy disk or other computer-readable data recording medium; [0251]; [0257] The software for … can be stored to any computer-readable data recording medium (such as a CD-ROM disc, floppy disk, or hard disk drive)).
See MPEP 2111.05 (III), when determining the scope of the claims, “an encoded video bitstream” is not given patentable weight, because “an encoded video bitstream” is non-functional descriptive material. It is merely static data that imparts no function (unlike an executable computer program which performs a function). It does not have any functional relationship with the intended computer system. Thus, the computer-readable data recording medium disclosed in Kadono meets claims 11-15.
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 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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. US 12238338 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. See the comparison:
Instant application 19/032,948
US 12238338 B2
1. A method of coding implemented by an encoding device, the method comprising:
obtaining a picture, determining a value of a syntax element sps_num_subpics_minus1 according to the picture, wherein the value of the syntax element sps_num_subpics_minus1 plus 1 indicates a number of subpictures in each picture in a coded layer video sequence;
when the value of the syntax element sps_num_subpics_minus1 is greater than a preset value, encoding a value of a syntax element sps_independent_subpics_flag into a video bitstream, wherein the value of the syntax element sps_independent_subpics_flag is used to indicate whether loop filtering across subpicture boundaries is performed.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein, when the value of the syntax element sps_num_subpics_minus1 is smaller than or equal to the preset value, the value of the syntax element sps_independent_subpics_flag is not encoded into the video bitstream.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the preset value is 0 or 1.
1. A method of coding implemented by a decoding device, the method comprising:
obtaining a value of a syntax element sps_num_subpics_minus1 by parsing a video bitstream, wherein the value of the syntax element sps_num_subpics_minus1 plus 1 indicates a number of subpictures in each picture in a coded layer video sequence; and
in response to the value of the syntax element sps_num_subpics_minus1 being greater than 0, obtaining a value of a syntax element sps_independent_subpics_flag from the video bitstream, wherein the value of the syntax element sps_independent_subpics_flag is used to indicate whether loop filtering across subpicture boundaries in the coded layer video sequence is performed;
in response to the value of the syntax element sps_num_subpics_minus1 being equal to 0, setting the value of the syntax element sps_independent_subpics_flag equal to a default value.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the value of the syntax element sps_independent_subpics_flag is coded in a sequence parameter set of the video bitstream.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the value of the syntax element sps_independent_subpics_flag is obtained according to a sequence parameter set coded in the video bitstream.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the value of the syntax element sps_independent_subpics_flag equal to 1 specifies that all subpicture boundaries in a coded layer vide sequence are treated as picture boundaries and there is no loop filtering across the subpicture boundaries, and the value of the syntax element sps_independent_subpics_flag equal to 0 specifies that not all subpicture boundaries in a coded layer video sequence are treated as picture boundaries.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the value of the syntax element sps_independent_subpics_flag equal to 1 specifies that all subpicture boundaries in a coded layer video sequence are treated as picture boundaries and there is no loop filtering across the subpicture boundaries, and the value of the syntax element sps_independent_subpics_flag equal to 0 specifies that not all subpicture boundaries in a coded layer video sequence are treated as picture boundaries.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable over the prior art if the above rejections are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, DAMGHANIAN et al. (US 20230024994 A1) discloses A method of coding implemented by an encoding device (abstract, An encoder and corresponding method define the segment partition layout, selects the at least one rule from a set of rules, and encodes the segment partition layout and the indicator value into the bitstream), the method comprising:
obtaining a picture ([0192] An encoder may perform all or a subset of the following steps for this embodiment to encode a current picture into a bitstream), determining a value of a syntax element sps_num_subpics_minus1 according to the picture ([0066] Subpictures are defined as a rectangular region of one or more slices within a picture; [0069] table 4, Subpicture syntax in the SPS, line 5, sps_num_subpics_minus1), wherein the value of the syntax element sps_num_subpics_minus1 plus 1 indicates a number of subpictures in each picture in a coded layer video sequence ([0073] sps_num_subpics_minus1 plus 1 specifies the number of subpictures);
encoding a value of a syntax element sps_independent_subpics_flag into a video bitstream ([0168] table 5 lines 4-6, sps_independent_subpics_flag), wherein the value of the syntax element sps_independent_subpics_flag is used to indicate whether loop filtering across subpicture boundaries is performed ([0170] sps_independent_subpics_flag equal to 1 specifies that no intra prediction, no inter prediction and no in-loop filtering operations may be performed across any subpicture boundary in the CLVS. sps_independent_subpics_flag equal to 0 specifies that intra prediction, inter prediction or in-loop filtering operations across the subpicture boundaries in the CLVS may be allowed).
However, DAMGHANIAN doesn’t disclose
when the value of the syntax element sps_num_subpics_minus1 is greater than a preset value, encoding a value of a syntax element sps_independent_subpics_flag into a video bitstream.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOLAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-7580. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. to Fri. 9am-5pm.
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, SATH V. PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at (571) 272-7455. 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.
/XIAOLAN XU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488