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 Interpretation
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 § 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.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 11-14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foreign Reference provided by the Information Disclosure Statement filed 02/28/2025 (JP 2017-510100 and hereafter referred to as “Sharp”).
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), 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 a sequence parameter set (SPS) (Page 16, 4th paragraph, Page 27, last line to Page 28, first four 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).
Regarding Claim 2, Sharp 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 n (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, Sharp discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. 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).
Regarding Claim 7, Sharp discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. 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).
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, and wherein the first value is the value of the second syntax element when it is determined that the second syntax element is referred to by the SPS (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).
Regarding Claim 9, Sharp discloses all the limitations of Claim 8 and 16 respectively. 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).
Regarding Claim 11, Sharp discloses all the limitations of Claim 8. 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).
Regarding Claim 12, Sharp discloses all the limitations of Claim 8. 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).
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),
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, wherein the first value is the value of a second syntax element being 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 a sequence parameter set (SPS) (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).
Regarding Claim 14, Sharp 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 18, Sharp discloses all the limitations of Claim 13. 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).
Regarding Claim 19, Sharp discloses all the limitations of Claim 13. 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3-4 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp in view of Seregin et al (US 2021/0235124 and hereafter referred to as “Seregin”).
Regarding Claim 3, Sharp discloses all the limitations of Claim 2. Sharp does not explicitly disclose the limitation. 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 Sharp 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 discloses all the limitations of Claim 2. Sharp does not explicitly disclose the limitation. 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 Sharp 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 discloses all the limitations of Claim 14. Sharp does not explicitly disclose the limitation. 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 Sharp 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 discloses all the limitations of Claim 14. Sharp does not explicitly disclose the limitation. 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 Sharp 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.
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 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,410 in view of Sharp.
Claim 1 of instant application
Corresponds to claim 1 of 12,250,410
A video decoding method comprising:
receiving an encoded bitstream include a first syntax element and quantized coefficients;
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 a sequence parameter set (SPS);
applying an inverse quantization on the quantized coefficients to obtain dequantized coefficients;
obtaining a reconstructed residual block based on the dequantized coefficients; and
obtaining a decoded picture based on the first syntax element and the dequantized coefficients.
A method of decoding a video or picture bitstream implemented by a decoding device, the method comprising:
obtaining a 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) comprising syntax elements that apply to a video sequence,
wherein a value of the first syntax element is in a range of 0 to a first value,
wherein the first value is a value of a second syntax element used to determine the maximum number of the 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 SPS; and
decoding the bitstream based on the value of the first syntax element, wherein the first value is a preset value when the second syntax element is not referred to by the SPS.
The instant application’s receiving an encoded bitstream include a first syntax element and quantized coefficients; applying an inverse quantization on the quantized coefficients to obtain dequantized coefficients; obtaining a reconstructed residual block based on the dequantized coefficients; and obtaining a decoded picture based on the first syntax element and the dequantized coefficients” are additional limitations. Sharp discloses 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),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). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify US 12,550,410 to include the missing limitations as taught by Sharp to improve coding efficiency.
Claim 2-4, 5, 6-9,10,11-12, 13-19 of the instant application corresponds to Claims 2-4, 1, 5-8, 7,9-10, 1-7 of US 12,550,410 respectively.
Regarding Claim 8, the instant application’s “obtaining transform coefficients of a residual block; performing quantization on the transform coefficients to obtain quantized coefficients; and encoding the value of the first syntax element and the quantized coefficients into an encoded bitstream” are additional limitations. Sharp discloses 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). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify US 12,550,410 to include the missing limitations as taught by Sharp to improve coding efficiency.
Regarding Claim 13, the instant application’s “a receiving unit configured to receive an encoded bitstream, the encoded bitstream including a first syntax element and quantized coefficient and a storing unit configured to store the encoded bitstream” are additional limitations. Sharp discloses 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), and storing unit configured to store the encoded bitstream (Page 4, 2nd paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify US 12,550,410 to include the missing limitations as taught by Sharp to improve coding efficiency.
Conclusion
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
February 17, 2026