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 05/13/2026. Claims 1-19 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot due to new grounds of rejection.
The applicant argues that Sharp does not teach a range of 0 to a first value and rather Sharp defines SPS to have a fixed upper bound and that Sharp treats SPS and VPS as alternative sources of information. The applicant argues there is a fixed range of 0 to 6.
In response to the argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Sharp discloses that it is assumed that the SPS syntax element and VPS syntax elements are in the range of 0 to 6 which is not a fixed range, it is an example of a range (Page 11, Table 3, Page 16,4th paragraph). Sharp discloses that vps parameters are used and are signaled otherwise SPS level parameter is used when the nuh_layer_id is equal to 0 (Page 13, 3rd paragraph). The examiner notes that Sharp 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 a sequence parameter set (SPS).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 13-19 recite “receiving unit configured by the one or more processors to receive an encoded bitstream…a storing unit configured by the one or more processors to store the encoded bitstream.
The specification does not state one or more processors configuring a receiving unit or a storing unit.
The specification discloses a pre-processor configured to receive raw picture data (not an encoded bitstream). The specification discloses receiver units (Figure 4, 420) for receiving data and storing unit for storing the data (Figure 4, 460) and the processor is communication with the receiver units and the memory (Figure 4, 430, 420, 460, paragraph 0145). It is noted that that the specification discloses ingress/input ports (Figure 4, 410) also in communication with the processor (paragraph 0145, 0146).
Please review the specification and either provide support for these limitations or amend the limitations.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-19 recite “receiving unit configured by the one or more processors to receive an encoded bitstream…a storing unit configured by the one or more processors to store the encoded bitstream. The claims are unclear as it vague if the units are software that are configured by the processors.
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, 11-14, 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 Bross et al (Versatile Video Coding (Draft 8), provided by applicant and cited in IDS filed 03/05/2025).
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 a sequence parameter set (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 a sequence parameter set (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). 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 a sequence parameter set (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 a sequence parameter set (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). 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 13, Sharp discloses an apparatus for storing an encoded bitstream, wherein the apparatus comprises:
one or more processors (Page 33, 2nd to last paragraph )
a receiving unit configured by one or more processors 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 by the one or more processors 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 a sequence parameter set (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 a sequence parameter set (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). 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 5, 10, and 17 Sharp and Bross discloses all the limitations of Claims 1, 8, and 13 respectively. Bross discloses wherein the first value is a preset value when the second syntax element is not referred to by the SPS (Page 99, §7.4.3.3, value is 0). See motivation above.
Regarding Claim 6, 11 and 18 Sharp and Bross 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). Bross discloses, wherein the second syntax element is in the VPS (Page 99, §7.4.3.3). 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). 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 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). 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 14, Sharp and Bross 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). 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.
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 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.
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 12,250,410 to include the missing limitations as taught by Sharp to improve coding efficiency.
Regarding Claim 13, the instant application’s “a receiving unit configured by one or more processors to receive an encoded bitstream, the encoded bitstream including a first syntax element and quantized coefficient and a storing unit configured by one or more processors 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, Page 33, 2nd to last paragraph-1st paragraph of Page 34), and storing unit configured to store the encoded bitstream (Page 4, 2nd paragraph, Page 33, 2nd to last paragraph-1st paragraph of Page 34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify US 12,250,410 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
June 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights