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
Applicant’s response received has been fully considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the constituent of the blocks are not disclosed, see pg. 1 of the argument
Examiner respectfully disagrees. See instant Application, para. [0031] Described herein is a constituent rectangles SEI message for VSEI to enable coded pictures formed from a composition of multiple constituent rectangles. The constituent rectangles may be of different content types, such as texture, depth, alpha, or object mask. Each constituent rectangle can also optionally be described by a text descriptor. However, BROSS discloses depth and textual information for block, see BROSS pg. 3, sect. C, left column, i.e. depth information … block, and texture, depth map; therefore it discloses such limitations.
Applicant’s amendment and the related arguments have been considered. It is noted that the Examiner did consider the applicants amendment; however, the amendment does not require further search since the prior art of record do teach the additional limitations. The application is rejected while correlating the newly amended limitations.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bross et al. “General Video Coding Technology in Responses to the Joint Call for Proposals on Video Compression With Capability Beyond HEVC” IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS FOR VIDEO TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 30, NO. 5, MAY 2020 in view of VCC, see VVC standard, 2020.
Regarding claim 1, BROSS discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform (see BROSS, i.e. Abstract): forming a composite picture (as cited below, i.e. BROSS, pg. 2, fig. 1, and section II) from a composition of two or more constituent rectangles (BROSS, pg. 7, Fig. 8); wherein the two or more constituent rectangles comprise respective constituent pictures of different content types (see BROSS pg. 3, sect. C, left column, i.e. depth information … block, and texture, depth map);
It is noted that BROSS is silent about supplemental enhancement information as claimed.
However, VCC discloses coding the composite picture to form a coded composite (pg. 21, fig. 4, and section 6.3) picture (VCC, pg. 10, tile 3.152); signaling information for determining respective size and position of the two or more constituent rectangle (VCC, pg. 163, Fig. 8) in the coded composite picture, signaling information related to the composite picture within a supplemental enhancement information (VCC, pg. 59, SEI) message (VCC, pg. 10, definition 3. 147).
Both VCC and BROSS teach systems with vvc compression technology, and those systems are comparable to that of the instant application. Because the two cited references are analogous to the instant application, it 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, to include in the BROSS disclosure, SEI signaling, as taught by VCC. Such inclusion would have increased the usefulness of the system by enable a video compression technology with better efficiency, and would have been consistent with the rationale of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to show a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143(I)(A)) under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, VCC/BROSS, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein: a unit size is signaled in luma samples (VCC, pg. 5, 3.39); and the information for determining respective sizes and positions of the at least two or more constituent rectangle is signaled in units of the unit size (VCC, pg. 21, sect. 6.3.1).
Regarding claim 3, VCC/BROSS, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: signaling a subpicture partitioning indicator that indicates whether subpicture partitioning parameters are used to determine sizes and positions of two or more constituent rectangles (VCC, pg. 21, sect. 6.3.1); wherein a first value for the subpicture partitioning indicator indicates that the subpicture partitioning parameters are used to determine the sizes and positions of the two or more constituent rectangles; and wherein a second value for the subpicture partitioning indicator indicates that the subpicture partitioning parameters are not used to determine the sizes and positions of the two or more constituent rectangles (VCC, pg. 3, section 3, 3.10).
Regarding claim 4, VCC/BROSS, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein: a constituent rectangle identifier is set equal to a subpicture index (VCC, pg. 3, sect. 3.10), when the subpicture partitioning indicator comprises the first value (as cited above, see sect. 3.8).
Regarding claim 5, VCC/BROSS, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: signaling a same size indicator that indicates whether two or more constituent rectangles have the same size and are arranged in a grid pattern (as cited above, i.e. VCC, sect. 6.3.1); wherein a first value for the same size indicator indicates that the one or more constituent rectangles comprise same size and are arranged in the grid pattern (VCC, pg. 22, Fig. 5); and number of rows of a grid are signaled, and a number of columns of the grid are signaled; and wherein a second value for the same size indicator indicates that sizes and positions of the two or more constituent rectangles are allowed to differ (VCC, pg. 21, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, VCC/BROSS, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the apparatus of claim 5, wherein: a top left horizontal position of a rectangle corresponding to an index is determined to be the index modulo the number of columns multiplied with a coded composite picture width divided with the number of columns, when the same size indicator has the first value; a top left vertical position of the rectangle corresponding to the index is determined to be the index divided with the number of columns multiplied with a coded composite picture height divided with the number of rows, when the same size indicator has the first value (VCC, pg. 4, 3.20); a width of the rectangle corresponding to the index is determined to be the coded composite picture width divided with the number of columns, when the same size indicator has the first value (VCC, pg. 4, 3.17); and a height of the rectangle corresponding to the index is determined to be the coded composite picture height divided with the number of rows, when the same size indicator has the first value (VCC, pg. 3, 3.10).
Regarding claim 7, VCC/BROSS, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: for the at least one constituent rectangle, signaling text to indicate a description of the at least one constituent rectangle (VCC, pg. 477, Sect. D).
Regarding claim 8, VCC/BROSS, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: signaling an identifier indicator to indicate whether an identifier is signaled for two or more constituent rectangles; signaling an identifier of a constituent rectangle, in response to the identifier being equal to a first value; an determining to not signal the identifier of the constituent rectangle and infer a value of the identifier to be an index of the constituent rectangle, in response to the identifier indicator not being equal to the first value (BROSS, pg. 11, sect. c).
Regarding claim 9, VCC/BROSS, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: signaling an identifier of the two or more constituent rectangle, in response to a type of the two or more constituent rectangle comprising a type other than empty (BROSS, pg. 9, sect. V, see the citation above, i.e. textual and depth type rectangular) .
Regarding claim 10, VCC/BROSS, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: signaling an empty rectangle, when a region of the composite picture corresponding to a signaled constituent rectangle position does not comprise information intended for any further usage by a receiving apparatus (As cited above, BROSS, 0 residual).
Regarding claim 11, VCC/BROSS, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform :using adaptive picture resolution coding when coding the composite picture; signaling a maximum picture dimensions and a current picture dimensions (BROSS, pg. 2, section II, … 256x256); and signaling a size and position indicator for indicating whether the position and size of two or more constituent rectangles are with respect to the maximum picture dimensions or with respect to the current picture dimensions (BROSS, pg. 2, sect. II.).
Regarding claim 12, VCC/BROSS, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: signaling a content type per constituent rectangle (VCC, section D.9.5 region-wise packing SEI).
Regarding claim 13, VCC/BROSS, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: signaling locations and sizes of two or more constituent rectangles through one of: subpicture parameters of a sequence parameter set without explicit signaling of the locations and sizes of the two or more constituent rectangles and without explicit signaling of a unit size, or a number of columns and rows when the two or more constituent rectangles are the same size, or explicit signaling in any order (VCC, pg. 28, section. 6.5.1).
Regarding claim 14, VCC/BROSS, for the same motivation of combination, discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: receiving a coded composite picture comprising a composition of two or more constituent rectangles; receiving of a size and position of at least one constituent rectangle in the coded composite picture; receiving information related to a composite picture within a supplemental enhancement information message; and determining two or more constituent rectangles of the composite picture, based on the information related to the composite picture received within the supplemental enhancement information message (The other amendment has similar limitation as claim 1, see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, VCC/BROSS, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the apparatus of claim 14, wherein: a unit size is signaled in luma samples; and information for determining respective sizes and positions of the two or more constituent rectangle is signaled in units of the unit size (see VCC, Luma citation above).
Regarding claim 16, VCC/BROSS, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: receiving a subpicture partitioning indicator that indicates whether subpicture partitioning parameters are used to determine sizes and positions of the two or more constituent rectangles; wherein a first value for the subpicture partitioning indicator indicates that the subpicture partitioning parameters are used to determine the sizes and positions of the one or more constituent rectangles; and wherein a second value the subpicture partitioning indicator indicates that the subpicture partitioning parameters are not used to determine the sizes and positions of the one or more constituent rectangles (see VCC, sect. 3.10 citation).
wherein a constituent rectangle identifier is set equal to a subpicture index, when the subpicture partitioning indicator has the first value (see VCC, index citation).
Regarding claim 18, VCC/BROSS, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: receiving a same size indicator that indicates whether the two or more constituent rectangles have the same size and are arranged in a grid pattern; wherein a first value for the same size flag indicator that the one or more constituent rectangles comprise a same size and are arranged in the grid pattern, and a number of rows of a grid are signaled, and a number of columns of the grid are signaled; and wherein a second value for the same size indicator indicates that sizes and positions of the two or more constituent rectangles are allowed to differ (see VCC, grid citation).
Regarding claim 19, VCC/BROSS, for the same motivation of combination, discloses a method comprising: forming a composite picture from a composition of two or more constituent rectangles (see rejection of claim 1); coding the composite picture to form a coded composite picture (see rejection of claim 1); signaling information for determining respective size and position of the two constituent rectangle in the coded composite picture (see rejection of claim 1); and signaling information related to the composite picture within a supplemental enhancement information message (The other amendments to this claim have similar limitations as claim 1, see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 20, VCC/BROSS, for the same motivation of combination, discloses a method comprising: receiving a coded composite picture comprising a composition of two or more constituent rectangles; receiving information for determining respective size and position of the two constituent (see rejection of claim 1) rectangle in the coded composite picture (see rejection of claim 1); receiving information related to a composite picture within a supplemental enhancement information message (see rejection of claim 1); and determining the respective size and positions of the two or more constituent rectangles of the composite picture (see rejection of claim 1), based on the information related to the composite picture received within the supplemental enhancement information message (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 21, VCC/BROSS, for the same motivation of combination, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a first constituent rectangle of the two or more constituent rectangles comprises a texture picture (see rejection citation below) and a second constituent rectangle (see rejection below) of the two or more constituent rectangles comprises an auxiliary picture selected from a depth picture, an alpha plane, or an object mask (see rejection of claim 1, i.e. ee BROSS pg. 3, sect. C, left column, i.e. depth information … block, and texture, depth map).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 11936882 B2 Sub-picture based random access
US 20230137221 A1 DECODING BASED ON BI-DIRECTIONAL PICTURE CONDITION
US 20230027058 A1 A Method, An Apparatus and A Computer Program Product for Video Encoding and Video Decoding
US 20220078486 A1 AN APPARATUS, A METHOD AND A COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR VIDEO CODING AND DECODING
US 11032568 B2 Method of video coding using prediction based on intra picture block copy
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 FRANK F HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 am - 6:00 pm (Eastern Time), Federal Alternative First Friday Off.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at (571)272-2988.. 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.
/FRANK F HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights