DETAILED ACTION
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(s) 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hannuksela (US PG Publication 2014/0218473).
Regarding Claim 1, Hannuksela (US PG Publication 2014/0218473) discloses a decoder (decoder Fig. 5a, [0661]) for decoding a picture (enhancement layer pictures, Fig. 5b, non-base stream, [0661]) from a data stream (entropy decoding on the received signal [0661]), the decoder comprising at least one processor (software [0694]) configured to:
decode, from the data stream (entropy decoding on the received signal [0661]), an indicator (nal_unit_type parameter, [0110] and following table) that specifies whether a subpicture-related information is shared by all subpictures of the picture (nal unit type is IDR [0110], following table; IDR is applied to all layers or no layers [0136]);
and in response to the indicator (nal_unit_type [0110]) specifying that the subpicture-related information is not shared by all of the subpictures of the picture (nal_unit_type is not IDR [0110] and following table), determine that subpicture-related information of a first subpicture of the picture and subpicture-related information of a second subpicture of the picture are different (each NAL unit has a nal_unit_type, inherent).
Regarding Claim 2, Hannuksela (US PG Publication 2014/0218473) discloses the decoder of Claim 1, wherein in response to the indicator specifying that the subpicture-related information is shared by all of the subpictures of the picture (nal unit type is IDR [0110], following table), the at least one processor is configured to:
determine that all of the subpictures of the picture share a common state (IDR is applied to all layers or no layers [0136]).
Regarding Claim 3, Hannuksela (US PG Publication 2014/0218473) discloses the decoder of Claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
determine whether the common state, that is shared by all of the subpictures of the picture, is:
a non-intra random access point network abstraction layer unit type, or IRAP NAL unit type (nal unit type is IDR [0110], following table; IDR is a RAP picture, random access, and intra-coded [0112]).
Regarding Claim 4, Hannuksela (US PG Publication 2014/0218473) discloses the decoder of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine whether the subpicture-related information (nal_unit_type [0110] and following table) of the first subpicture (base view component [0661]) of the picture (enhancement layer, which is based on the base-view component, Fig. 5b), is either:
a non-IRAP NAL unit type (nal_unit_type not between 16 and 23 [0112]), or IRAP NAL unit type (random access pictures have a nal_unit_type between 16 and 23 [0112]);
and determine whether the subpicture-related information (nal_unit_type [0110] and following table) of the second subpicture (non-base component [0661]) of the picture (enhancement layer, which is based on the base-view component, Fig. 5b), is either:
a non-IRAP NAL unit type (nal_unit_type not between 16 and 23 [0112]), or IRAP NAL unit type (nal_unit_type between 16 and 23 [0112]).
Regarding Claim 5, Hannuksela (US PG Publication 2014/0218473) discloses the decoder of Claim 1, wherein after a determination that the indicator specifies that the subpicture-related information is not shared by all of the subpictures of the picture (nal unit type is not IDR [0110], following table), the at least one processor is configured to:
decode a first NAL unit type for the first subpicture (nal unit with nuh_layer_id [0103], [0106] == 0 indicates the base layer, inferred [0130]-[0137]);
and decode a second NAL unit type for the second subpicture (nal unit with nuh_layer_id [0103], [0106] != 0 indicates the base layer, inferred [0130]-[0137]), wherein the first NAL unit type is different than the second NAL unit type (only IDR pictures have to be aligned in the access unit [0136]; other rap pictures can be in the enhancement layer only [0130], [0137]).
Regarding Claim 7, Hannuksela (US PG Publication 2014/0218473) discloses the decoder of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
decode, from the data stream (entropy decoding on the received signal [0661]), information (the nal unit header contains the nal unit type and the layer id [0103], [0105], [0106]—which means there is a different nal unit/header for each layer, i.e., sub-picture), indicating an NAL unit type (nal unit type [0103]) of the subpictures (layer id [0106]);
in response to the indicator indicating a subpicture-related information is shared by all subpictures of the picture (nal unit type is IDR [0110]), determine that the NAL unit type is the same for all of the subpictures of the picture (IDR is present in an access unit either in all layers or in no layers [0136]);
in response to the information indicating a first state (nal unit type is not IDR but is BLA or CRA [0110], following table), determine that at least one of the subpictures is coded in a random access point manner (BLA and CRA are random access pictures [0112]);
and in response to the information indicating a second state (nal unit type is not in the range of 16-23, not a RAP [0112]), determine that at least one of the subpictures is not coded in a random access point manner (when nal unit type is not RAP the layer is not RAP [0112]).
Regarding Claim 8, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 15, Hannuksela (US PG Publication 2014/0218473) discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions that when executed cause at least one processor of an electronic device (software [0694]). The remainder of Claim 15 is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 22, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 23, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 24, Hannuksela (US PG Publication 2014/0218473) discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions, the instructions when executed cause at least one processor (software [0694]). The remainder of Claim 24 is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 1.
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) 6, 13, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannuksela (US PG Publication 2014/0218473) in view of Park (US 2009/0034626 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Hannuksela (US PG Publication 2014/0218473) discloses the decoder of Claim 1, wherein:
each subpicture of the subpictures includes at least one video coding layer NAL unit (the nal unit header contains the nal unit type and the layer id [0103], [0105], [0106]—which means there is a different nal unit/header for each layer, i.e., sub-picture);
the subpicture-related information is a NAL unit type (nal_unit_type [0110] and following table).
Hannuksela does not disclose, but Park (US 2009/0034626 A1) teaches the indicator is a flag (NAL unit header can include flag information indicating whether a current access unit is an IDR access unit [0083]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to modify Hannuksela to include an IDR flag in the NAL unit header, as taught by Park, because Park suggests that this coding scheme generates efficiency when the decoding process has to respond to errors generated during the transmission of the bitstream [0011]-[0012], improving the decoding process.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 27 July 2026 have been considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the base and enhancement layer of Hannuksela are not “sub-pictures” as claimed, as sub-pictures are described by Hannuksela at [0270] and the as-filed Specification at p. 4 ll. 1-10. Remarks at 13. The description of sub-picture Applicant proffers is the spatial division of a picture into non-overlapping tiles or groups of tiles. Specification at p. 4 ll. 1-10. This, however, is not the broadest reasonable interpretation of the word “sub-picture.” It is a limitation that should not be imported from the specification into the claims during examination. The base-view picture of Hannuksela, as can be seen in Fig. 4b, is a down-sampled version of the original picture, and is therefore a sub-picture. The enhancement view stream is a full-resolution stream with base-layer pixel data removed. It is therefore a sub-picture. Applicant may amend the claim to limit sub-pictures to be a non-overlapping, spatial partitions of the picture, as described in the specification at p. 4 ll. 1-10.
Applicant argues that Hannuksela’s nal_unit_type parameter does not read on the claimed “indicator,” because the nal_unit_type parameter identifies the type of a NAL unit, not whether the sub-picture related information is shared by all sub-pictures. Remarks at 11. Examiner does not agree. The nal_unit_type parameter does indicate whether all sub-pictures are a random access point. When nal_unit_type is IDR, all sub-pictures (layers) are IDR. Hannuksela at [0136]. Other nal_unit_type values are not aligned across layers—which means they are not all the IRAP or the same type of IRAP at the same time. Hannuksela at [0133], [0137]. Sometimes only an enhancement layer picture can be a random access point. Hannuksela at [0130]. Sometimes only the base layer picture is a random access point. Hannuksela at [0134], [0138]. In short, when the nal_unit_type is not IDR, the type varies for each layer (sub-picture). Indeed, this is not where or how Applicant’s invention signals the random-access granularity; Applicant may amend the claim to include limitations described in the specification at p. 6 ll. 24-30.
Examiner does not agree with Applicant’s analysis of the mapping of dependent Claim 4: that the office action asserts that the base view and enhancement view are sub-pictures, and that the enhancement view is again the whole picture. Remarks at 13. The enhancement view, after reconstruction, has the base view pixels restored to it and it represents the whole picture. Before and during encoding, however, the enhancement view is the remaining data after base view pixels removed from the original picture, which makes it a sub-picture. The whole “picture” is the base-view and enhancement view super-posed on each other.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220094909 A1 – sub pictures in the same access unit are allowed to have different types
US 20150326866 A1 – if layer 0 picture is a random access picture, then the entire access unit is a random access picture
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 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 SHADAN E HAGHANI whose telephone number is (571)270-5631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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.
/SHADAN E HAGHANI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights