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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boyce et al. (“Additional SEI messages for VSEI (Draft 6)” Joint Video Experts Team (JVET)
of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29 25th Meeting, by teleconference, 12–21 January 2022 Document: JVET-Y2006), hereinafter referred to as Boyce.
Regarding claim 1, Boyce discloses image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising:
obtaining, from a bitstream, an extended dependent random access point (EDRAP) indication supplemental enhancement information, SEI, message associated with a picture (p. 3 defines decoder parsing: “read_bits( n ) reads the next n bits from the syntax structure and advances the data pointer...” pp. 26-27 then provide the extended_drap_indication(payloadSize) syntax. Thus, the EDRAP SEI syntax is obtained by the decoding process from the bitstream syntax structure);
determining the picture associated with the EDRAP indication SEI message as an EDRAP picture (p. 26 discloses that “[t]he picture associated with an extended DRAP (EDRAP) indication SEI message is referred to as an EDRAP picture);
obtaining, from the EDRAP indication SEI message, syntax elements including edrap_leading_pictures_decodable_flag, edrap_num_ref_rap_pics_minus1, and edrap_ref_rap_id[i], where i is in a range from 0 to edrap_num_ref_rap pics_minus1 (p. 26 lists in the EDRAP syntax edrap_leading_pictures_decodable_flag, edrap_num_ref_rap_pics_minus1, and edrap_ref_rap_id[i] as claimed);
deriving referenceablePictures consisting of a list of intra random access point, IRAP, or EDRAP pictures that are present in a current coded layer video sequence, CLVS, are identified by the edraprefrap idri] syntax elements, and are listed in decoding order (p. 26 discloses 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
based on edrap_leading_pictures_decodable_flag being equal to 1, determining that a picture that is in a same layer and follows the EDRAP picture in decoding order and precedes the EDRAP picture in output order does not include, in active entries of reference picture lists of the picture, a picture that is in the same layer and precedes the EDRAP picture in decoding order, with an exception of the referenceablePictures (pp. 26-27 disclose edrap_leading_pictures_decodable_flag equal to 1 specifies that any picture following the EDRAP picture in decoding order and preceding the EDRAP picture in output order shall not include any picture preceding the EDRAP picture in decoding order, with the exception of the referenceablePictures).
Regarding claim 6, Boyce disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Boyce discloses the image decoding method of claim 1 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 (p. 26 discloses that any picture following the EDRAP picture in both decoding order and output order does not include any picture preceding the EDRAP picture in decoding order or output order, with the exception of the referenceablePictures), 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) (p. 26 defines referenceablePictures as a list of IRAP or EDRAP pictures within the same CLVS)
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 an 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: an 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.
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 2-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyce et al. (), hereinafter referred to as Boyce, in view of Ugur et al. (US20140219346A1), hereinafter referred to as Ugur.
Regarding claim 2, Boyce disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Boyce discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the picture that follows the EDRAP picture in decoding order and precedes the EDRAP picture in output order corresponds to a leading picture associated with the EDRAP picture (p. 26 addresses a picture that follows the EDRAP picture in decoding order and precedes it in output order)
Boyce does not explicitly disclose, wherein the leading picture comprises a decodable leading picture and a non-decodable leading picture; and 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 wherein the leading picture comprises a decodable leading picture and a non-decodable leading picture (¶¶[0140]-[0142] disclose a leading picture is either a RADL picture or a RASL picture, wherein RADL pictures can be correctly decoded from the associated RAP, while RASL pictures may not be correctly decodable when referenced pictures are unavailable); and
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 ).
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 Boyce 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 3, Boyce and Ugur disclose all the limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Boyce discloses the image decoding method of claim 2, 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) (p. 26 discloses that referenceablePictures consists of a list of IRAP or EDRAP pictures in decoding order that are within the same CLVS)
Boyce does not explicitly disclose, wherein the decodable leading picture is constrained not to refer to the non-decodable leading picture except for predetermined pictures
However, Ugur from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses wherein the decodable leading picture is constrained not to refer to the non-decodable leading picture except for predetermined pictures (¶¶[0141] and [0142] discloses that RASL pictures are not used as reference pictures for the decoding process of non-RASL pictures, while RADL pictures are decodable leading pictures).
The motivation for combining Boyce and Ugur has been discussed in connection with claim 2, above.
Regarding claim 4, Boyce and Ugur disclose all the limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Boyce discloses the image decoding method of claim 2, 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) (p. 26 defines referenceablePictures as IRAP or EDRAP pictures within the same CLVS)
Boyce does not explicitly disclose, alone, wherein the decodable leading picture is constrained not to refer to a picture preceding the EDRAP picture in decoding order, except for predetermined pictures
However, Boyce in combination with Ugur discloses wherein the decodable leading picture is constrained not to refer to a picture preceding the EDRAP picture in decoding order, except for predetermined pictures (Ugur: ¶[0142] discloses 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; Boyce: p. 26 supplies the EDRAP specific exception “with the exception of the referenceablePictures” ).
The motivation for combining Boyce and Ugur has been discussed in connection with claim 2, above.
Regarding claim 5, Boyce and Ugur disclose all the limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Boyce discloses the image decoding method of claim 2, 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) (p. 26 defines referenceablePictures as IRAP or EDRAP pictures within the same CLVS)
Boyce does not explicitly disclose, alone, wherein the decodable leading picture is constrained not to refer to a picture preceding the EDRAP picture in decoding order, except for predetermined pictures
However, Boyce in combination with Ugur discloses wherein the decodable leading picture is constrained not to refer to a picture preceding the EDRAP picture in decoding order, except for predetermined pictures (Ugur: ¶¶[0141]-[0142] disclose that RASL pictures are not used as reference pictures for non-RASL pictures. Y2006 p. 26 separately constrains pictures following EDRAP in both decoding and output order from referencing earlier pictures, “with the exception of the referenceablePictures; Boyce: p. 26 separately constrains pictures following EDRAP in both decoding and output order from referencing earlier pictures, “with the exception of the referenceablePictures. ).
The motivation for combining Boyce and Ugur has been discussed in connection with claim 2, above.
Regarding claim 11, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claims 1 and 10, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of a transmitting method for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Boyce does not explicitly disclose, method of transmitting a bitstream, the method comprising transmitting the bitstream.
However, Ugur from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses method of transmitting a bitstream, the method comprising transmitting the bitstream (¶¶[0306], [0442] and [0460])
The motivation for combining Boyce and Ugur has been discussed in connection with claim 2, above.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyce, in view of Ugur, and further, in view of Wang748 (US 20230353748 A1), hereinafter referred to as Wang748
Regarding claim 7, Boyce and Ugur disclose all the limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Boyce does not explicitly disclose the image decoding method of claim 2, wherein the bitstream further 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 bitstream further 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 Boyce 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, Boyce and Ugur disclose all the limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Boyce does not explicitly disclose the image decoding method of claim 2, wherein the bitstream further comprises a second SEI message for indicating the non-decodable leading picture.
However, Wang748 from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the bitstream further 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 Boyce, Ugur and Wang748 has been discussed in connection with claim 7, above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyce et al. (), hereinafter referred to as Boyce, in view of Wang007 et al. (US20230345007A1), hereinafter referred to as Wang007.
Regarding claim 9, Boyce discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Boyce does not explicitly disclose the image decoding method of claim 1 wherein the EDRAP indication SEI message further comprises edrap_leading_pictures_present_flag
However, Wang007 from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the image decoding method of claim 1 wherein the EDRAP indication SEI message further comprises edrap_leading_pictures_present_flag (¶[0090]).
wherein edrap_leading_pictures_present_flag equal to 1 specifies that the EDRAP picture has one or more associated leading pictures (¶[0088])
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 Boyce to add the teachings of Wang007 as above, in order to improve random access, seeking, and playback reliability while preserving compression efficiency (Wang007, [0045], [0046], [0087], [0089], [0156] and [0157]).
Examiner submits that the remaining limitations of claim 9 are contingent limitations and are not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim when the recited condition precedent is not met. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 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, 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