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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to communications filed 09/16/2026. Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-16,18-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 009/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot due to new grounds of rejection.
The applicant argues that Sharp and Bross do no teach the preset value of 6 when it is determined that he second syntax element is not referred to by the current SPS. The applicant argues that Bross leaves the case undefined. The applicant also argues that Sharp does not teach this limitation.
In response to the arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner agrees that the Bross does not have this particular case. However, the limitation “wherein the first value is a preset value of 6 when the second syntax element is not referred to by the current SPS” is a contingent limitation in method claim. Therefore, any limitations which refers to wherein the first value is a preset value of 6 when the second syntax element is not referred to by the current SPS are not required to be met. See MPEP 2111.04, II.
So Bross teaches the contingency a first value is when vps_max_sublayers_minus1 is referred to by the current SPS and the case of when it is not referred is not required. Bross discloses wherein the first value is a preset value of 6 when the second syntax element is not referred to by the current SPS (Page 99, §7.4.3.3, the value of sps_max_sublayers-_minus1 shall in the range of 0 to vps_max_sublayers_minus1, if sps_video_parameter_set_id is not 0, refers to vps_max_sublayers_minus1, Page 94, §7.4.3.2, vps_max_sublayers_minus1, meets the interpretation when the second syntax element is present).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case,
to include the missing limitations as taught by Bross in order to have high compression capability beyond that of prior generation and to be highly versatile and have high video quality (Page 1, § 1, see Introduction and overview of the design characteristics ) as disclosed by Bross.
See also second prior art rejection with a new reference which teaches the contingency.
Claim Interpretation
Note that the limitation “wherein the first value is a preset value of 6 when the second syntax element is not referred to by the current SPS” is a contingent limitation and is not required in method claims. Therefore, any limitations which refers to wherein the first value is a preset value of 6 when the second syntax element is not referred to by the current SPS are not required to be met. See MPEP 2111.04, II. The Office notes that while any of the limitations in relation to the wherein the first value is a preset value of 6 when the second syntax element is not referred to by the current SPS” are not required, that the claim language can be easily amended to be required and therefore, the Office is providing two different art rejection for claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-12, 20 and 21 (first rejection is where the contingency is not required and the second rejection is teaching the contingency). Please note that dependent claims 20-21 are not required to be met as they contingent limitations.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: receiving unit (Figure 1A, 28, paragraph 0063, any interface to receive meets the limitation or Figure 4, 410) and storing unit (Figure 1, 28, paragraph 0063 – encoded picture data storage device, or Figure 4, 460, paragraph 0169) in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 11-12, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Reference provided by the Information Disclosure Statement filed 02/28/2025 (JP 2017-510100 and hereafter referred to as “Sharp”) in view of Bross et al (Versatile Video Coding (Draft 8), provided by applicant and cited in IDS filed 03/05/2025).
See claim interpretation above for contingent limitations ( “wherein the first value is a preset value of 6 when the second syntax element is not referred to by the current SPS”) See MPEP 2111.04, II.
Regarding Claim 1, Sharp discloses a video decoding method comprising:
receiving an encoded bitstream include a first syntax element and quantized coefficients (Page 6, last paragraph to Page 7, end of paragraph, Page 8, 4th paragraph-Page 9, paragraph 4th paragraph, Page 5, first paragraph),
obtaining the first syntax element used to determine a maximum number of temporal sublayers that is allowed to be present in each coded layer video sequence (CLVS) referring to a current sequence parameter set (SPS) (Page 11, Table 3, Page 8, 4th paragraph, Page 5, first paragraph, Page 13, 3rd paragraph, Page 35, first-third paragraphs), wherein a value of the first syntax element is in a range of 0 to a first value (Page 11, Table 3, see also Page 16, 4th paragraph, Page 27, last line to Page 28, first four paragraphs, Page 13, 3rd paragraph );
applying an inverse quantization on the quantized coefficients to obtain dequantized coefficients (Page 9, 4th paragraph, Figure 3A);
obtaining a reconstructed residual block based on the dequantized coefficients (Page 6, last paragraph to Page 7, end of paragraph, Page 8, 4th paragraph-Page 9, paragraph 4th paragraph, Page 5, first paragraph, Figure 3A); and
obtaining a decoded picture based on the first syntax element and the dequantized coefficients (Figure 3, Figure 4, Page 11, Table 2 and 3).
Sharp discloses using both SPS and VPS but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first value is the value of a second syntax element used to determine the maximum number of temporal sublayers that is allowed to be present in a layer in each coded video sequence (CVS) referring to a video parameter set (VPS) when the second syntax element is referred to by the current SPS, and wherein the first value is a preset value of 6 when the second syntax element is not referred to by the current SPS.
Bross discloses obtaining the first syntax element used to determine a maximum number of temporal sublayers that is allowed to be present in each coded layer video sequence (CLVS) referring to a current sequence parameter set (SPS), wherein a value of the first syntax element is in a range of 0 to a first value, wherein the first value is the value of a second syntax element used to determine the maximum number of temporal sublayers that is allowed to be present in a layer in each coded video sequence (CVS) referring to a video parameter set (VPS) when the second syntax element is referred to by the current SPS, and wherein the first value is a preset value of 6 when the second syntax element is not referred to by the current SPS (Page 99, §7.4.3.3, the value of sps_max_sublayers-_minus1 shall in the range of 0 to vps_max_sublayers_minus1, if sps_video_parameter_set_id is not 0, refers to vps_max_sublayers_minus1, Page 94, §7.4.3.2, vps_max_sublayers_minus1, meets the interpretation when the second syntax element is present). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sharp to include the missing limitations as taught by Bross in order to have greater flexibility, robustness and efficiency (Page 1, paragraph 0003) as disclosed by Bross.
Regarding Claim 8, Sharp discloses a video encoding method comprising:
determining whether a second syntax element is referred to by a sequence parameter set (SPS), wherein the second syntax element is used to determine a maximum number of temporal sublayers that is allowed to be present in a layer in each coded video sequence (CVS) referring to a video parameter set (VPS) (Page 11, Table 3, Page 8, 4th paragraph, Page 5, first paragraph, Page 13, 3rd paragraph, Page 35, first-third paragraphs);
determining a value of a first syntax element used to determine the maximum number of temporal sublayers that is allowed to be present in each coded layer video sequence (CLVS) referring to the current SPS, based on a range of the first syntax element, wherein the range is from 0 to a first value (Page 16, 4th paragraph, Page 27, last line to Page 28, first four paragraph);
obtaining transform coefficients of a residual block (Page 7, 5th-7th paragraphs, Page 8, 4th paragraph to Page 9, 4th paragraph, Figure 2A, Figure 2B, Figure 3A);
performing quantization on the transform coefficients to obtain quantized coefficients (Page 7, 5th-7th paragraphs, Page 8, 4th paragraph to Page 9, 4th paragraph, Figure 2B, Figure 3A); and
encoding the value of the first syntax element and the quantized coefficients into an encoded bitstream (Page 7, last paragraph, Figure 2A, Figure 2B).
Sharp discloses using both SPS and VPS but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first value is the value of a second syntax element used to determine the maximum number of temporal sublayers that is allowed to be present in a layer in each coded video sequence (CVS) referring to a video parameter set (VPS) when the second syntax element is referred to by the current SPS, and wherein the first value is a preset value of 6 when the second syntax element is not referred to by the current SPS.
Bross discloses obtaining the first syntax element used to determine a maximum number of temporal sublayers that is allowed to be present in each coded layer video sequence (CLVS) referring to a current sequence parameter set (SPS), wherein a value of the first syntax element is in a range of 0 to a first value, wherein the first value is the value of a second syntax element used to determine the maximum number of temporal sublayers that is allowed to be present in a layer in each coded video sequence (CVS) referring to a video parameter set (VPS) when the second syntax element is referred to by the current SPS, and wherein the first value is a preset value of 6 when the second syntax element is not referred to by the current SPS (Page 99, §7.4.3.3, the value of sps_max_sublayers-_minus1 shall in the range of 0 to vps_max_sublayers_minus1, if sps_video_parameter_set_id is not 0, refers to vps_max_sublayers_minus1, Page 94, §7.4.3.2, vps_max_sublayers_minus1, meets the interpretation when the second syntax element is present). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sharp to include the missing limitations as taught by Bross in order to have greater flexibility, robustness and efficiency (Page 1, paragraph 0003) as disclosed by Bross.
Regarding Claim 2, Sharp and Bross discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Sharp discloses obtaining decoding capability information based on the value of the first syntax element, and decoding the bitstream based on the decoding capability information (Page 3, dpb parameter, Figure 1, figure 6, Figure 7A- Figure 7B, Page 14-15, last line to page 14 first 2 lines). Bross discloses obtaining decoding capability information based on the value of the first syntax element, and decoding the bitstream based on the decoding capability information (Page 187, §8.4.5, Page 99, §7.4.3.3, Page 137-138, §7.4.5). See motivation above.
Regarding Claim 6 and 11, Sharp and Bross discloses all the limitations of Claims 1 and 8 respectively. Sharp discloses, wherein the second syntax element is in the VPS (Page 16, 4th paragraph, Page 27, last line to Page 28, first four paragraphs). Bross discloses, wherein the second syntax element is in the VPS (Page 99, §7.4.3.3). See motivation above.
Regarding Claim 7 and 12, Sharp and Bross discloses all the limitations of Claims 1 and 8 respectively. Sharp discloses wherein the first syntax element is in the SPS (Page 11, Table 3, Page 8, 4th paragraph, Page 5, first paragraph, Page 13, 3rd paragraph, Page 35, first-third paragraphs). Bross discloses wherein the first syntax element is in the SPS (Page 99, §7.4.3.3). See motivation above.
Regarding Claim 9, Sharp and Bross discloses all the limitations of Claim 8. Sharp discloses the encoding the bitstream comprises encoding decoding capability information into the bitstream based on the value of the first syntax element (Page 21, paragraph 0316, Page 21-22, paragraph 0319, Page 23, paragraph 0363, 0366-0367, Page 2, paragraph 0031, Page 14, paragraph 0222, Page 15, paragraph 0236, Table 1). Bross discloses obtaining decoding capability information based on the value of the first syntax element, and decoding the bitstream based on the decoding capability information (Page 187, §8.4.5, Page 99, §7.4.3.3, Page 137-138, §7.4.5). See motivation above.
Regarding Claim 20-21, Sharp and Bross discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 and 8 respectively. The limitations are not required as they are contingent. See interpretation above.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 11-14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Reference provided by the Information Disclosure Statement filed 02/28/2025 (JP 2017-510100 and hereafter referred to as “Sharp”) in view of Deshpande (US 20170026655).
Regarding Claim 1, Sharp discloses a video decoding method comprising:
receiving an encoded bitstream include a first syntax element and quantized coefficients (Page 6, last paragraph to Page 7, end of paragraph, Page 8, 4th paragraph-Page 9, paragraph 4th paragraph, Page 5, first paragraph),
obtaining the first syntax element used to determine a maximum number of temporal sublayers that is allowed to be present in each coded layer video sequence (CLVS) referring to a current sequence parameter set (SPS) (Page 11, Table 3, Page 8, 4th paragraph, Page 5, first paragraph, Page 13, 3rd paragraph, Page 35, first-third paragraphs), wherein a value of the first syntax element is in a range of 0 to a first value (Page 11, Table 3, see also Page 16, 4th paragraph, Page 27, last line to Page 28, first four paragraphs, Page 13, 3rd paragraph );
applying an inverse quantization on the quantized coefficients to obtain dequantized coefficients (Page 9, 4th paragraph, Figure 3A);
obtaining a reconstructed residual block based on the dequantized coefficients (Page 6, last paragraph to Page 7, end of paragraph, Page 8, 4th paragraph-Page 9, paragraph 4th paragraph, Page 5, first paragraph, Figure 3A); and
obtaining a decoded picture based on the first syntax element and the dequantized coefficients (Figure 3, Figure 4, Page 11, Table 2 and 3).
Sharp discloses using both SPS and VPS but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first value is the value of a second syntax element used to determine the maximum number of temporal sublayers that is allowed to be present in a layer in each coded video sequence (CVS) referring to a video parameter set (VPS) when the second syntax element is referred to by the current SPS, and wherein the first value is a preset value of 6 when the second syntax element is not referred to by the current SPS.
Deshpande discloses obtaining the first syntax element used to determine a maximum number of temporal sublayers that is allowed to be present in each coded layer video sequence (CLVS) referring to a current sequence parameter set (SPS), wherein a value of the first syntax element is in a range of 0 to a first value, wherein the first value is the value of a second syntax element used to determine the maximum number of temporal sublayers that is allowed to be present in a layer in each coded video sequence (CVS) referring to a video parameter set (VPS) ,when the second syntax element is referred to by the current SPS, and wherein the first value is a preset value of 6 when the second syntax element is not referred to by the current SPS (Page 10, paragraphs 0056-0058, see also 0054-0055, the value of sps_max_sublayers-_minus1 is in the range of 0 to vps_max_sublayers_minus1, when sub_layers_vps_max_minus1[i] is not signaled by SPS, sps_max_sublayers-_minus1 is in the range of 0 to 6, inclusive). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sharp to include the missing limitations as taught by Deshpande in order to efficiently represent high quality digital media for storage, transmission and playback which previously had challenges (Page 1, paragraph 0004) as disclosed by Deshpande.
Regarding Claim 8, Sharp discloses a video encoding method comprising:
determining whether a second syntax element is referred to by a sequence parameter set (SPS), wherein the second syntax element is used to determine a maximum number of temporal sublayers that is allowed to be present in a layer in each coded video sequence (CVS) referring to a video parameter set (VPS) (Page 11, Table 3, Page 8, 4th paragraph, Page 5, first paragraph, Page 13, 3rd paragraph, Page 35, first-third paragraphs);
determining a value of a first syntax element used to determine the maximum number of temporal sublayers that is allowed to be present in each coded layer video sequence (CLVS) referring to the current SPS, based on a range of the first syntax element, wherein the range is from 0 to a first value (Page 16, 4th paragraph, Page 27, last line to Page 28, first four paragraph);
obtaining transform coefficients of a residual block (Page 7, 5th-7th paragraphs, Page 8, 4th paragraph to Page 9, 4th paragraph, Figure 2A, Figure 2B, Figure 3A);
performing quantization on the transform coefficients to obtain quantized coefficients (Page 7, 5th-7th paragraphs, Page 8, 4th paragraph to Page 9, 4th paragraph, Figure 2B, Figure 3A); and
encoding the value of the first syntax element and the quantized coefficients into an encoded bitstream (Page 7, last paragraph, Figure 2A, Figure 2B).
Sharp discloses using both SPS and VPS but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first value is the value of a second syntax element used to determine the maximum number of temporal sublayers that is allowed to be present in a layer in each coded video sequence (CVS) referring to a video parameter set (VPS) when the second syntax element is referred to by the current SPS, and wherein the first value is a preset value of 6 when the second syntax element is not referred to by the current SPS.
Deshpande discloses obtaining the first syntax element used to determine a maximum number of temporal sublayers that is allowed to be present in each coded layer video sequence (CLVS) referring to a current sequence parameter set (SPS), wherein a value of the first syntax element is in a range of 0 to a first value, wherein the first value is the value of a second syntax element used to determine the maximum number of temporal sublayers that is allowed to be present in a layer in each coded video sequence (CVS) referring to a video parameter set (VPS) ,when the second syntax element is referred to by the current SPS, and wherein the first value is a preset value of 6 when the second syntax element is not referred to by the current SPS (Page 10, paragraphs 0056-0058, see also 0054-0055, the value of sps_max_sublayers-_minus1 is in the range of 0 to vps_max_sublayers_minus1, when sub_layers_vps_max_minus1[i] is not signaled by SPS, sps_max_sublayers-_minus1 is in the range of 0 to 6, inclusive). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sharp to include the missing limitations as taught by Deshpande in order to efficiently represent high quality digital media for storage, transmission and playback which previously had challenges (Page 1, paragraph 0004) as disclosed by Deshpande.
Regarding Claim 13, Sharp discloses an apparatus for storing an encoded bitstream, wherein the apparatus comprises:
a receiving unit configured to receive an encoded bitstream, the encoded bitstream including a first syntax element and quantized coefficients (Page 6, last paragraph to Page 7, end of paragraph, Page 8, 4th paragraph-Page 9, paragraph 4th paragraph, Page 5, first paragraph, Page 33, 2nd to last paragraph-1st paragraph of Page 34),
wherein the first syntax element is used to determine a maximum number of temporal sublayers that is allowed to be present in each coded layer video sequence (CLVS) referring to a current sequence parameter set (SPS) (Page 11, Table 3, Page 8, 4th paragraph, Page 5, first paragraph, Page 13, 3rd paragraph, Page 35, first-third paragraphs), wherein a value of the first syntax element is in a range of 0 to a first value (Page 16, 4th paragraph, Page 27, last line to Page 28, first four paragraph); and
a storing unit configured to store the encoded bitstream (Page 4, 2nd paragraph, Page 33, 2nd to last paragraph-1st paragraph of Page 34).
Sharp discloses using both SPS and VPS but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first value is the value of a second syntax element used to determine the maximum number of temporal sublayers that is allowed to be present in a layer in each coded video sequence (CVS) referring to a video parameter set (VPS) when the second syntax element is referred to by the current SPS, and wherein the first value is a preset value of 6 when the second syntax element is not referred to by the current SPS.
Deshpande discloses obtaining the first syntax element used to determine a maximum number of temporal sublayers that is allowed to be present in each coded layer video sequence (CLVS) referring to a current sequence parameter set (SPS), wherein a value of the first syntax element is in a range of 0 to a first value, wherein the first value is the value of a second syntax element used to determine the maximum number of temporal sublayers that is allowed to be present in a layer in each coded video sequence (CVS) referring to a video parameter set (VPS) ,when the second syntax element is referred to by the current SPS, and wherein the first value is a preset value of 6 when the second syntax element is not referred to by the current SPS (Page 10, paragraphs 0056-0058, see also 0054-0055, the value of sps_max_sublayers-_minus1 is in the range of 0 to vps_max_sublayers_minus1 (first value), when sub_layers_vps_max_minus1[i] is not signaled by SPS, sps_max_sublayers-_minus1 is in the range of 0 to 6, inclusive). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sharp to include the missing limitations as taught by Deshpande in order to efficiently represent high quality digital media for storage, transmission and playback which previously had challenges (Page 1, paragraph 0004) as disclosed by Deshpande.
Regarding Claim 2, Sharp and Deshpande discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Sharp discloses obtaining decoding capability information based on the value of the first syntax element, and decoding the bitstream based on the decoding capability information (Page 3, dpb parameter, Figure 1, figure 6, Figure 7A- Figure 7B, Page 14-15, last line to page 14 first 2 lines).
Regarding Claim 6, 11 and 18 Sharp and Deshpande discloses all the limitations of Claims 1, 8, and 13 respectively. Sharp discloses, wherein the second syntax element is in the VPS (Page 16, 4th paragraph, Page 27, last line to Page 28, first four paragraphs). Deshpande discloses, wherein the second syntax element is in the VPS (paragraph 0054-0058). See motivation above.
Regarding Claim 7, 12, and 19, Sharp and Bross discloses all the limitations of Claims 1, 8, and 13 respectively. Sharp discloses wherein the first syntax element is in the SPS (Page 11, Table 3, Page 8, 4th paragraph, Page 5, first paragraph, Page 13, 3rd paragraph, Page 35, first-third paragraphs). Deshpande discloses wherein the first syntax element is in the SPS (paragraphs 0054-0058). See motivation above.
Regarding Claim 9, Sharp and Deshpande discloses all the limitations of Claim 8 and 16 respectively. Sharp discloses the encoding comprises encoding decoding capability information into the encoded bitstream based on the value of the first syntax element (Page 21, paragraph 0316, Page 21-22, paragraph 0319, Page 23, paragraph 0363, 0366-0367, Page 2, paragraph 0031, Page 14, paragraph 0222, Page 15, paragraph 0236, Table 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Sharp and Deshpande discloses all the limitations of Claim 13 respectively. Sharp discloses herein the bitstream further includes decoding capability information dependent on the value of the first syntax element (Page 3, dpb parameter, Figure 1, figure 6, Figure 7A- Figure 7B, Page 14-15, last line to page 14 first 2 lines).
Regarding Claim 20, 21 and 22, Sharp and Deshpande discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, 8 and 13 respectively. Deshpande discloses wherein the second syntax element is not present in the encoded bitstream when the second syntax element is not referred to by the current SPS (Page 10, paragraph 0056-0058, sub_layers_vps_max_minus1[i] is not present in the SPS).
Claims 3-4 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp in view of Bross, as applied to claim 2 and 14 above, further in view of Seregin et al (US 2021/0235124 and hereafter referred to as “Seregin”).
Regarding Claim 3, Sharp and Bross discloses all the limitations of Claim 2. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitations. Seregin discloses wherein the decoding capability information comprises a decoded picture buffer (DPB) syntax element, the decoding the bitstream based on the decoding capability information comprises configuring a DPB based on the value of the DPB syntax element; and further comprising decoding the bitstream using the DPB to reconstruct a video sequence (Page 10, paragraph 0093-0094, Page 21, paragraph 0173, Page 22, paragraph 0190). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitations as taught by Seregin in order to more efficiently implement video coding techniques (Page 1, paragraph 0003) as disclosed by Seregin.
Regarding Claim 4, Sharp and Bross discloses all the limitations of Claim 2. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitations. Seregin discloses wherein the decoding capability information comprises a decoded picture buffer (DPB) syntax element, the decoding the bitstream based on the decoding capability information comprises decoding the bitstream based on determining that a DPB satisfies a requirement specified by the value of the DPB syntax element to reconstruct a video sequence (Page 10, paragraph 0093-0094, Page 21, paragraph 0173, Page 22, paragraph 0190). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify v to include the missing limitations as taught by Seregin in order to more efficiently implement video coding techniques (Page 1, paragraph 0003) as disclosed by Seregin.
Regarding Claim 15, Sharp and Bross discloses all the limitations of Claim 14. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitations Seregin discloses the decoding capability information comprises a decoded picture buffer (DPB) syntax element used for configuring a DPB (Page 10, paragraph 0093-0094, Page 21, paragraph 0173, Page 22, paragraph 0190). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitations as taught by Seregin in order to more efficiently implement video coding techniques (Page 1, paragraph 0003) as disclosed by Seregin.
Regarding Claim 16, Sharp and Bross discloses all the limitations of Claim 14. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitations Seregin discloses the decoding capability information comprises a decoded picture buffer (DPB) syntax element used for decoding the bitstream when determining that a DPB used satisfies a requirement specified by the value of the DPB syntax element (Page 10, paragraph 0093-0094, Page 21, paragraph 0173, Page 22, paragraph 0190). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitations as taught by Seregin in order to more efficiently implement video coding techniques (Page 1, paragraph 0003) as disclosed by Seregin.
Claims 3-4 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp in view of Deshpande, as applied to claim 2 and 14 above, further in view of Seregin et al (US 2021/0235124 and hereafter referred to as “Seregin”).
Regarding Claim 3, Sharp and Deshpande discloses all the limitations of Claim 2. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitations. Seregin discloses wherein the decoding capability information comprises a decoded picture buffer (DPB) syntax element, the decoding the bitstream based on the decoding capability information comprises configuring a DPB based on the value of the DPB syntax element; and further comprising decoding the bitstream using the DPB to reconstruct a video sequence (Page 10, paragraph 0093-0094, Page 21, paragraph 0173, Page 22, paragraph 0190). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitations as taught by Seregin in order to more efficiently implement video coding techniques (Page 1, paragraph 0003) as disclosed by Seregin.
Regarding Claim 4, Sharp and Deshpande discloses all the limitations of Claim 2. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitations. Seregin discloses wherein the decoding capability information comprises a decoded picture buffer (DPB) syntax element, the decoding the bitstream based on the decoding capability information comprises decoding the bitstream based on determining that a DPB satisfies a requirement specified by the value of the DPB syntax element to reconstruct a video sequence (Page 10, paragraph 0093-0094, Page 21, paragraph 0173, Page 22, paragraph 0190). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify v to include the missing limitations as taught by Seregin in order to more efficiently implement video coding techniques (Page 1, paragraph 0003) as disclosed by Seregin.
Regarding Claim 15, Sharp and Deshpande discloses all the limitations of Claim 14. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitations Seregin discloses the decoding capability information comprises a decoded picture buffer (DPB) syntax element used for configuring a DPB (Page 10, paragraph 0093-0094, Page 21, paragraph 0173, Page 22, paragraph 0190). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitations as taught by Seregin in order to more efficiently implement video coding techniques (Page 1, paragraph 0003) as disclosed by Seregin.
Regarding Claim 16, Sharp and Deshpande discloses all the limitations of Claim 14. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitations Seregin discloses the decoding capability information comprises a decoded picture buffer (DPB) syntax element used for decoding the bitstream when determining that a DPB used satisfies a requirement specified by the value of the DPB syntax element (Page 10, paragraph 0093-0094, Page 21, paragraph 0173, Page 22, paragraph 0190). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitations as taught by Seregin in order to more efficiently implement video coding techniques (Page 1, paragraph 0003) as disclosed by Seregin.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZANA HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5943. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Christopher Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/FARZANA HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
September 24, 2026
