`
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11, this claim is directed towards a method of transmitting a bitstream, but it fails to include any step of transmission in the body of the claim. Therefore, it is unclear what constitutes the claimed method of transmission.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ugur et al. (US20140219346A1), hereinafter referred to as Ugur.
Regarding claims 11, this claim is directed to method of transmitting a bitstream generated by an image encoding method. The limitations related to the operations that generated the bitstream are irrelevant as in terms of determining patentability of the method of transmitting a bitstream. Therefore, the operations referenced in the claim(s) that generates the bitstream do not form part of transmitting method, and thus are not limiting to the scope of the claim. Thus, the claim scope is just a method of transmitting a bitstream and is anticipated by Ugur which recites a method of transmitting a bitstream (See Ugur, ¶¶[0306], [0442] and [0460] ).
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.
Claims 1-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“AHG9: On the DRAP and EDRAP indication SEI messages” Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29 22nd Meeting, by teleconference, 20–28 Apr. 2021 Document: JVET-V0065-v1), hereinafter referred to as Wang, in view of Ugur.
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising:
obtaining a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message for an extended dependent random access point (EDRAP) picture from a bitstream (See section 8.23.1 disclosing that the picture associated with an extended DRAP (EDRAP) indication SEI message is referred to as an EDRAP picture and the syntax extended_drap_indication( payloadSize ));
Wang does not explicitly disclose, alone, identifying a leading picture following the EDRAP picture in decoding order and preceding the EDRAP picture in output order, based on the SEI message;
However, Wang in combination with Ugur, which is in the same or similar endeavor of image processing disclose this limitation. Wang teaches, in section 8.23.1, that the presence of the EDRAP indication SEI message indicates that the constraints on picture order and picture referencing specified in this subclause apply and further discloses that any picture that is in the same layer and follows the EDRAP picture in decoding order shall follow, in output order, any picture that is in the same layer and precedes the EDRAP picture in decoding order. Ugur discloses, in ¶ [0138], that the CRA pictures in HEVC allow so-called leading pictures that follow the CRA picture in decoding order but precede it in output order.
Therefore, Wang discloses that the SEI message signals the relevant picture order constraint, and Ugur discloses that pictures having that exact order relationship are leading pictures. Thus. The combination discloses identifying a leading picture following the EDRAP picture in decoding order and preceding the EDRAP picture in output order, based on the SEI message;
Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the leading picture comprises at least one of a decodable leading picture or a non-decodable leading picture.
However, Ugur from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses wherein the leading picture comprises at least one of a decodable leading picture or a non-decodable leading picture (See ¶¶[0140-[0142] disclosing that a leading picture is a picture that precedes the associated RAP picture in output order. The associated RAP picture is the previous RAP picture in decoding order (if present). A leading picture is either a RADL ( decodable picture) picture or a RASL picture (non-decodable picture)).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Wang to add the teachings of Ugur as above, in order to identify and control leading pictures and their constraints in order to ensure correct decoding and improve robustness during random access (Ugur, ¶¶ [0141], [0142] and [0147]).
Regarding claim 2, Wang and Ugur disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Wang does not explicitly disclose the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the non-decodable leading picture is constrained to precede the decodable leading picture in output order.
However, Ugur from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the non-decodable leading picture is constrained to precede the decodable leading picture in output order (See ¶ [0147] disclosing that any RASL picture (non-decodable leading picture) associated with a CRA or BLA picture may be constrained to precede any RADL picture associated with the CRA or BLA picture in output order ).
The motivation for combining Wang and Ugur has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 3, Wang and Ugur disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Wang does not explicitly disclose, alone, the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein decodable leading picture is constrained not to refer to the non-decodable leading picture except for predetermined pictures, and wherein the predetermined pictures comprise an intra random access point (IRAP) picture or an EDRAP picture belonging to the same coded layer video sequence (CLVS).
However, Wang in combination with Ugur, disclose this limitation.
Ugur discloses, in ¶[0142], that RADL pictures do not refer to any picture preceding the associated RAP picture in decoding order and can therefore be correctly decoded when the decoding starts from the associated RAP picture.
Wang discloses, in section 8.23.1, that any picture that is in the same layer and follows the EDRAP picture in both decoding order and output order does not include, in the active entries of its reference picture lists, any picture that is in the same layer and precedes the EDRAP picture in decoding order or output order, with the exception of the referenceablePictures; the list of pictures referenceablePictures, which consists of a list of IRAP or EDRAP pictures in decoding order that are within the same CLVS and identified by the edrap_ref_rap_id[ i ] syntax elements; and that the i-th RAP picture shall be either the IRAP picture associated with the current EDRAP picture or an EDRAP picture associated with the same IRAP picture as the current EDRAP picture.
Therefore, Ugur provides the decodable leading picture framework through RADL, while Wang provides the actual reference constraint and exception for IRAP or ERAP pictures withing the same CLVS
The motivation for combining Wang and Ugur has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 4, Wang and Ugur disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Wang does not explicitly disclose, alone, the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the decodable leading picture is constrained not to refer to a picture preceding the EDRAP picture in decoding order, except for predetermined pictures, and wherein the predetermined pictures comprise an intra random access point (IRAP) picture or an EDRAP picture belonging to the same coded layer video sequence (CLVS).
However, Wang in combination with Ugur, disclose this limitation.
Ugur discloses, in ¶[0142], that RADL pictures do not refer to any picture preceding the associated RAP picture in decoding order and can therefore be correctly decoded when the decoding starts from the associated RAP picture.
Wang discloses, in section 8.23.1 , that any picture that is in the same layer and follows the EDRAP picture in both decoding order and output order does not include, in the active entries of its reference picture lists, any picture that is in the same layer and precedes the EDRAP picture in decoding order or output order, with the exception of the referenceablePictures; the list of pictures referenceablePictures, which consists of a list of IRAP or EDRAP pictures in decoding order that are within the same CLVS and identified by the edrap_ref_rap_id[ i ] syntax elements; and that the i-th RAP picture shall be either the IRAP picture associated with the current EDRAP picture or an EDRAP picture associated with the same IRAP picture as the current EDRAP picture.
Therefore, Ugur provides the decodable leading picture framework through RADL, while Wang provides the actual constraint that such a picture does not refer to pictures preceding EDRAP pictures in decoding order except for IRAP or ERAP pictures withing the same CLVS
The motivation for combining Wang and Ugur has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 5, Wang and Ugur disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Wang does not explicitly disclose, alone, the image decoding method of . The image decoding method of wherein a picture following the EDRAP picture in decoding order and output order is constrained not to refer to the non-decodable picture, except for predetermined pictures, and wherein the predetermined pictures comprise an intra random access point (IRAP) picture or an EDRAP picture belonging to the same coded layer video sequence (CLVS)..
However, Wang in combination with Ugur, disclose this limitation.
Ugur discloses, in ¶[0141], that RASL pictures are not used as reference pictures for the decoding process of non-RASL pictures. When present, all RASL pictures precede, in decoding order, all trailing pictures of the same associated RAP picture.
Wang discloses, in section 8.23.1 , that any picture that is in the same layer and follows the EDRAP picture in both decoding order and output order does not include, in the active entries of its reference picture lists, any picture that is in the same layer and precedes the EDRAP picture in decoding order or output order, with the exception of the referenceablePictures; the list of pictures referenceablePictures, which consists of a list of IRAP or EDRAP pictures in decoding order that are within the same CLVS and identified by the edrap_ref_rap_id[ i ] syntax elements; and that the i-th RAP picture shall be either the IRAP picture associated with the current EDRAP picture or an EDRAP picture associated with the same IRAP picture as the current EDRAP picture.
Therefore, Ugur provides the non-decodable leading picture framework through RASL and teaches that such pictures are not used as reference pictures for later pictures, while Wang provides the actual constraint on a that a picture following the EDRAP pictures in both decoding order and output order, except for IRAP or ERAP pictures withing the same CLVS
The motivation for combining Wang and Ugur has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 6, Wang and Ugur disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Wang discloses the image decoding method of . The image decoding method of wherein a picture following the EDRAP picture in decoding order and output order is constrained not to refer to a picture preceding the EDRAP picture in decoding order, except for predetermined pictures, and wherein the predetermined pictures comprise an intra random access point (IRAP) picture or an EDRAP picture belonging to the same coded layer video sequence (CLVS) (See section 8.23, disclosing that any picture that is in the same layer and follows the EDRAP picture in both decoding order and output order does not include, in the active entries of its reference picture lists, any picture that is in the same layer and precedes the EDRAP picture in decoding order or output order, with the exception of the referenceablePictures; the list of pictures referenceablePictures, which consists of a list of IRAP or EDRAP pictures in decoding order that are within the same CLVS and identified by the edrap_ref_rap_id[ i ] syntax elements; and that the i-th RAP picture shall be either the IRAP picture associated with the current EDRAP picture or an EDRAP picture associated with the same IRAP picture as the current EDRAP picture. )
Regarding claim 10, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the decoding method of claim 1, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of a encoding method for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
The Examiner notes that it is well-known in the art that video compression involves a complementary pair of systems: a encoder and a decoder. The encoder converts the source data into a compressed form, occupying a reduced number of bits prior to transmission or storage, while the decoder converts the compressed form back into a representation of the original video data by performing a reciprocal process to that of the encoder, decoding the encoded video data from the bitstream.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of Ugur, and further, in view of Wang748 (US 20230353748 A1), hereinafter referred to as Wang748
Regarding claim 7, Wang and Ugur disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Wang does not explicitly disclose the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the SEI message comprises a first SEI message for indicating the decodable leading picture.
However, Wang748 from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the SEI message comprises a first SEI message for indicating the decodable leading picture (See ¶[0093] disclosing an additional SEI message is specified. The presence of this additional SEI message indicates that the pictures in the same layer and following, in decoding order, the DRAP picture associated with both the SEI message and a DRAP indication SEI message, and preceding the DRAP picture in output order, do not refer to any picture that is in the same layer and positioned earlier than the DRAP picture in decoding order for inter prediction).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Wang and Ugur to add the teachings of Wang748 as above, in order to add signaling to indicate when backward referencing is disallowed so that such pictures can be correctly displayed during random access, with Ugur supplying the known decodable leading picture framework for those pictures (Wang748, [0087]and [0088]).
Regarding claim 8, Wang and Ugur disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Wang does not explicitly disclose the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the SEI message comprises a second SEI message for indicating the non-decodable leading picture.
However, Ugur or Wang748 from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the SEI message comprises a second SEI message for indicating the non-decodable leading picture (See ¶[0094] disclosing In one example, an additional SEI message is specified, and an indication is added to the additional SEI message syntax to indicate whether the pictures in the same layer and following, in decoding order, the DRAP picture associated with both the additional SEI message and a DRAP indication SEI message, and preceding the DRAP picture in output order are allowed to refer to a picture in the same layer and earlier than the DRAP picture in decoding order for inter prediction; and the flag is set equal to X (X being 1 or 0) to indicate that the pictures in the same layer and following the DRAP picture in decoding order but preceding the DRAP picture in output order are allowed to refer to a picture in the same layer and earlier than the DRAP picture in decoding order for inter prediction).
The motivation for combining Wang, Ugur and Wang748 has been discussed in connection with claim 7, above.
Regarding claim 9, Wang and Ugur disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Wang does not explicitly disclose the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the SEI message comprises a syntax element indicating whether the EDRAP picture comprises the leading picture.
However, Ugur or Wang748 from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the SEI message comprises a syntax element indicating whether the EDRAP picture comprises the leading picture (See ¶¶[0087], [0095], [0105] and [0108] disclosing identifying the type 2 DRAP picture as an EDRAP picture, and that the Type 2 DRAP indication SEI message includes a specific syntax t2drap_leading_pictures_decodable_flag for indicating the status of picture that follows the EDRAP picture in decoding order and precede it in output order, i.e., the associated leading pictures).
The motivation for combining Wang, Ugur and Wang748 has been discussed in connection with claim 7, above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for additional references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM (EST).
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on (571)272-7384. 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.
/FABIO S LIMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights