DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 2/25/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 2/25/2025 has/have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449).
Claim interpretation
Claims 15-20 are directed to a computer readable medium that stores generated bitstream.
The bitstream is being treated as a product that is the result of the process (method). The steps are not required elements of claim(s), so they only limit the invention in terms of how they define the contents of the information in the bitstream. MPEP §2113
The contents of the bitstream, defined by how the bitstream was generated, only describes the content of the information in the bitstream and as result are descriptive language. See MPEP §2111.05. The bitstream has no functional relationship with the claimed non-transitory computer-readable recording medium.
If a language such as “…the steps executed by a processor…” is added to the clam(s), a broad interpretation as indicated above may be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of patent No. 1267530 (hereinafter reference patent).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claims of the present application recite elements that are same in substance as the claims of the reference patent except that the claims are in different forms such as method, device, system and non-transitory storage medium or the claims are in a natural or obvious counterpart of the other.
That is, processing/storing. in the method claim may equate to processor/memory in the device claim or the storage medium in the storage medium claim and encoding claims may be obvious or natural counterpart of the decoding claims.
Claim Mapping Notation
In this office action, following notations are being used to refer to the paragraph numbers or column number and lines of portions of the cited reference.
In this office action, following notations are being used to refer to the paragraph numbers or column number and lines of portions of the cited reference.
[0005] (Paragraph number [0005])
C5 (Column 5)
Pa5 (Page 5)
S5 (Section 5)
Furthermore, unless necessary to distinguish from other references in this action, “et al.” will be omitted when referring to the reference.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) and (a2) as being anticipated by Seregin et al. (US 20210235124 A1)
1. A computer-implemented method for decoding video, comprising:
receiving a bitstream comprising a coded video sequence (CVS);
“[0061] vps_all_independent_layers_flag equal to 1 specifies that all layers in the CVS are independently coded without using inter-layer prediction. vps_all_independent_layers_flag equal to 0 specifies that one or more of the layers in the CVS may use inter-layer prediction. When not present, the value of vps_all_independent_layers_flag is inferred to be equal to 1.”
decoding the bitstream, the decoding comprising:
determining whether the CVS has equal number of decoded picture buffer (DPB) parameter syntax structures and output layer sets (OLSs); and
“[0098] vps_num_dpb_params_minus1 specifies the number minus1 of dpb_parameters( ) syntax structures in the VPS. The value of vps_num_dpb_params_minus1 shall be in the range of 0 to 15, inclusive.
[0099] ols_dpb_params_idx[i] specifies the index, to the list of dpb_parameters( ) syntax structures in the VPS, of the dpb_parameters( ) syntax structure that applies to the i-th OLS when NumLayersInOls[i] is greater than 1. When present, the value of ols_dpb_params_idx[i] shall be in the range of 0 to vps_num_dpb_params_minus1, inclusive. When ols_dpb_params_idx[i] is not present, the value of ols_dpb_params_idx[i] is inferred to be equal to 0.”
It is inherent that the number of DPB parameter syntax structure and OLSs are compared in order to decide whether to parse or skip the DPB index.
in response to the CVS having equal number of DPB parameter syntax structures and OLSs, skipping decoding a first DPB syntax element specifying an index, to a list of DPB parameter syntax structures in a video parameter set (VPS), of an DPB parameter syntax structure that applies to a corresponding OLS.
“[0091] ols_dpb_params_idx[i] specifies the index, to the list of dpb_parameters( ) syntax structures in the VPS, of the dpb_parameters( ) syntax structure that applies to the i-th OLS when NumLayersInOls[i] is greater than 1. When present, the value of ols_dpb_params_idx[i] shall be in the range of 0 to vps_num_dpb_params_minus1, inclusive. When ols_dpb_params_idx[i] is not present, the value of ols_dpb_params_idx[i] is inferred to be equal to 0.”
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the decoding further comprises: determining whether the number of DPB parameter syntax structures is less than or equal to one; and
in response to the number of DPB parameter syntax structures is less than or equal to one, skipping decoding the first DPB syntax element when decoding the VPS.
“[0098] vps_num_dpb_params_minus1 specifies the number minus1 of dpb_parameters( ) syntax structures in the VPS. The value of vps_num_dpb_params_minus1 shall be in the range of 0 to 15, inclusive.
[0099] ols_dpb_params_idx[i] specifies the index, to the list of dpb_parameters( ) syntax structures in the VPS, of the dpb_parameters( ) syntax structure that applies to the i-th OLS when NumLayersInOls[i] is greater than 1. When present, the value of ols_dpb_params_idx[i] shall be in the range of 0 to vps_num_dpb_params_minus1, inclusive. When ols_dpb_params_idx[i] is not present, the value of ols_dpb_params_idx[i] is inferred to be equal to 0.”
3. The method according to claim 2, wherein the decoding further comprises: in response to the number of DPB parameter syntax structures being less than or equal to one, determining the first DPB syntax element to be zero; and
“[0091] ols_dpb_params_idx[i] specifies the index, to the list of dpb_parameters( ) syntax structures in the VPS, of the dpb_parameters( ) syntax structure that applies to the i-th OLS when NumLayersInOls[i] is greater than 1. When present, the value of ols_dpb_params_idx[i] shall be in the range of 0 to vps_num_dpb_params_minus1, inclusive. When ols_dpb_params_idx[i] is not present, the value of ols_dpb_params_idx[i] is inferred to be equal to 0.”
in response to the number of DPB syntax structures being equal to the number of the OLSs, determining the first DPB syntax element to be equal to an index of the OLS to which the DPB parameter syntax structure specified by the first DPB syntax element applies.
“[0092] When NumLayersInOls[i] is equal to 1, the dpb_parameters( ) syntax structure that applies to the i-th OLS is present in the SPS referred to by the layer in the i-th OLS.”
4. The method according to claim 2, wherein the decoding further comprises: in response to the number of DPB parameter syntax structures being greater than one and different from the number of the OLSs, decoding the first DPB syntax element with a variable length in the VPS.
“[0099] ols_dpb_params_idx[i] specifies the index, to the list of dpb_parameters( ) syntax structures in the VPS, of the dpb_parameters( ) syntax structure that applies to the i-th OLS when NumLayersInOls[i] is greater than 1. When present, the value of ols_dpb_params_idx[i] shall be in the range of 0 to vps_num_dpb_params_minus1, inclusive. When ols_dpb_params_idx[i] is not present, the value of ols_dpb_params_idx[i] is inferred to be equal to 0.
[0100] When NumLayersInOls[i] is equal to 1, the dpb_parameters( ) syntax structure that applies to the i-th OLS is present in the SPS referred to by the layer in the i-th OLS.”
5. The method according to claim 1, wherein the decoding further comprises: determining whether the CVS has equal number of profile, tier and level (PTL) syntax structures and the OLSs; and
in response to the number of PTL syntax structures being equal to the number of the OLSs, skipping decoding a first PTL syntax element specifying an index, to a list of PTL syntax structures in the VPS, of a PTL syntax structure that applies to a corresponding OLS when decoding the VPS.
“[0094] While described generally with reference to decoded picture buffer (DPB) structures, the techniques of this disclosure may be equally applicable to other syntax structures. As one example, the techniques of this disclosure may be applicable to profile tier level (PTL) syntax structures. As another example, the techniques of this disclosure may be applicable to hypothetical reference decoder (HRD) syntax structures.”
6. The method according to claim 5, wherein the decoding further comprises: determining whether the number of PTL syntax structures being equal to one; and
in response the number of PTL syntax structures being equal to one, skipping decoding the first PTL syntax element when decoding the VPS.
“[0095] In some examples, it may be desirable for a video coder to utilize a consistent design in signaling of PTL, HRD, and DPB structures. For instance, a video coder may signal a common flag to indicate the presence or absence of PTL, DBP, and HRD parameters (e.g., sps_ptl_dpb_hrd_params_present_flag) in the sequence parameter set (SPS)
[0096] In accordance with one or more techniques of this disclosure, a video coder may signal a common flag to indicate the presence or absence of DBP and HRD parameters in the video parameter set (VPS). The video coder may separately signal a flag to indicate the presence or absence of PTL parameters (e.g., as the PTL parameters may be used for session negotiation purposes).”
7. The method according to claim 5, wherein the decoding further comprises: in response to the number of PTL syntax structures being greater than one and different from the number of the OLSs, decoding the first PTL syntax element with a fixed length in the VPS.
“[0097] The following example syntax and semantics may illustrate one or more implementations of the above-described techniques. Modifications relative to VVC Draft 8 are presented in italics.”
See also Table 8.
Regarding the claims 8-20, they recite elements that are at least included in the claims 1-7 and 1-6 above but in a different claim form and/or encoding/decoding counterpart that are reciprocal. Therefore, the same rationale for the rejection of the claims 1-7 and 1-6 applies.
Regarding the processor, memory and storage medium in the claims, see [246]-[249].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang et al. (US 20220239934 A1) disclose relevant art related to the subject matter of the present invention.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE N. NOH whose telephone number is (571) 270-0686. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAE N NOH/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481