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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/1/26 has been entered.
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)(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(s) 1-2, 6-10, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al. (US 2015/0312588).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a method for decoding a slice in a coded picture from a bitstream (see 10 in fig. 1; see fig. 32), the method comprising: determining whether the coded picture may contain inter coded slices or not based on a first syntax element decoded from the bitstream (see “slice_type” in fig. 32); determining whether the coded picture may contain bi-directional inter coded slices or not based on a third syntax element decoded from the bitstream (see “inter_pred_flag” in fig. 32); if the coded picture may contain inter coded slices and the coded picture may contain bi-directional inter coded slices (see fig. 31 for determining coded picture may contain inter and bi-directional in fig. 32), obtaining a parameter value by decoding a fourth syntax element included in the bitstream (see content of “Pred_BI” in figs. 31 and 32), otherwise obtaining the parameter value by inferring a value for the fourth syntax element (see content of “Pred_L0” in figs. 31 and 32); and decoding the slice of the coded picture using the parameter value (see 10 in fig. 1).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Yamamoto further discloses wherein the fourth syntax element is a collocated from L0 flag (see content of “Pred_L0” in figs. 31 and 32).
Regarding claim 6, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 7, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 8, the claim(s) recite a method of encoding (see fig. 25) with analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 9, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim 8, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claims 10 and 14, Yamamoto further discloses wherein the first syntax element and the third syntax element are decoded from a syntax structure in the bitstream (see fig. 31).
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 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 of this title, 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 3, 11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Yamamoto discloses wherein inferring a value for the fourth syntax element comprises inferring: (i) the collocated from L0 flag as equal to 1 (see “inferred” in fig. 32, although not clearly shown, it is obvious that a “0” or “1” would be flag value).
Regarding claims 11 and 15, Yamamoto further discloses wherein the syntax structure is present in a picture header network abstraction layer (NAL) unit of the coded picture or in a slice header of the coded picture.
Although it is not explicitly recited, it is conventional in the art for syntax structure is present in a picture header network abstraction layer (NAL) unit of the coded picture or in a slice header of the coded picture. The Examiner takes official notice that syntax structure is present in a picture header network abstraction layer (NAL) unit of the coded picture or in a slice header of the coded picture is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made incorporate the syntax structure is present in a picture header network abstraction layer (NAL) unit of the coded picture or in a slice header of the coded picture for the benefit of compatibility with industries standard video header structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 5 discloses wherein the method further comprises, after determining that the coded picture may contain inter coded slices, decoding from the bitstream a second syntax element indicating whether or not the coded picture may contain intra coded slices, the first syntax element is ph_inter_slice_allowed_flag, and the second syntax element is ph_intra_slice_allowed_flag.
The closest prior art Yamamoto fails to anticipate or render the above underlined limitation obvious.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Laroche et al. (US 2023/0065112), discloses high level syntax for video coding.
2. Deng et al. (US 2022/0400256), discloses coding syntax for inter and intra mode.
3. Wang et al. (US 2025/0240455), discloses coding syntax for inter and intra mode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD T TORRENTE whose telephone number is (571)270-3702. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6:45-3:15 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, 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.
/RICHARD T TORRENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights