DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 08/28/2025 and 05/21/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
3. Claims 14-23, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Fnu Hendry et al., (hereinafter Hendry) (US 2017/0094302) in view of Miska Hannuksela (hereinafter Hannuksela) (US 2016/0191931).
1.-13. (Cancelled)
Re Claim 14. (New) Hendry discloses, a decoding method (a decoder device 112 in Fig.1), comprising:
receiving a video bitstream including a current picture (receiving at decoder 112 a video bitstream 120, and using the decoding engine 116 per Fig.1, Par.[0083]);
deriving a first reference picture list and a second reference picture list for the current picture from the video bitstream (determining a first reference picture list “List0” and a second reference picture list “List1”, in an inter-coded slice, i.e., of the current picture, Par.[0194]);
performing conformance checking on the video bitstream (conforming that according to the exemplary aspects related to the first and second sets of pictures are being determined under which a series of constraints are set, i.e., where the RASL pictures of an IRAP picture to precede all RADL pictures of the IRAP picture order, Par.[0006-0007] and as further defined by other examples at Par.[0008-0020], etc.),
wherein the conformance checking comprises determining that the current picture is a random access decodable leading (RADL) picture (as part of the conformed conditions, determining that the current picture is coded as leading RADL, having a TemporalId lower than the IRAP , Par.[0008, 0010-0012, 0016]) and that there is no picture referred to by an entry in the first reference picture list or the second reference picture list that is any of (and arranging the first set and second sets of pictures according to the TemporalId, Par.[0016] and Fig.7):
a random access skipped leading (RASL) picture (based on that no picture referred to by an entry in the first reference picture list or the second reference picture list, it is determined as a constraint according to the condition that only RADL pictures are used in a closed GOP, Par.[0006] or as a constraint with RASL pictures, preceding RADL pictures, the system would drop the consecutive RASL pictures, when considering an open GOP structure, Par.[0007] or where the RASL pictures are discarded Par.[0018], etc.), or
a picture that precedes an associated intra random access point (IRAP) picture in decoding order (in consideration to the leading pictures are preceding i.e., leading the IRAP picture in decoding order, Par.[0006] as determined by the TemporalId at Par.[0009, 0019-0020, 0024]); and
decoding each slice of the current picture based on one or both of the first reference picture list and the second reference picture list (decoding the slice of the current picture under first or second or both reference picture lists, according to the constrains applied to the encoded first and second sets of pictures, per Fig.6 to be decoded according to the steps in Fig.7).
In an analogous art, Hannuksela expressly teaches the claimed first list 0, and second list 1, representing the reference picture lists of the decoding method according to the constraints reciting,
receiving a video bitstream including a current picture (receiving a bitstream at an entropy decoder Fig.11, or Fig.12, Abstract);
deriving a first reference picture list and a second reference picture list for the current picture from the video bitstream (deriving a first “Curr” reference pictures lists of the current picture and a second “Foll” reference pictures lists that may be used in subsequent pictures in decoding order, as reference picture list, Par.[0213] of the first reference picture list 0, RefPicSetStCurr0, and the second reference picture list 1, RefPicSetStCurr1, at Par.[0217]);
performing conformance checking on the video bitstream, wherein the conformance checking comprises determining that the current picture is a random access decodable leading (RADL) picture (determining the RADL picture in table at Par.[0174] at nal_unit_type 6 and 7, and Par.[0175]) and
that there is no picture referred to by an entry in the first reference picture list or the second reference picture list that is any (under the condition of a clear random reference (CRA), of the leading pictures following the CRA, Par.[0177] determining that) of:
a random access skipped leading (RASL) picture (where the RASL picture and any associated pictures are not output by decoder, Par.[0178-0180]), or
a picture that precedes an associated intra random access point (IRAP) picture in decoding order (and the RADL pictures are correctly decoded Par.[0181]); and
decoding each slice of the current picture based on one or both of the first reference picture list and the second reference picture list (decoding according to the constraints at Par.[0183-0186]).
The ordinary skilled in the art would have found obvious prior to the effective filing date of invention, to seek and derive a different explanation from Hendry in order to define a known and applied similar (de)coding and prediction process, under different interpretative views in order to improve the output quality of the video in, Hannuksela (Par.[0161]), by which to arrive to the same transformation thus finding such combination predictable.
Re Claim 15. (New) Hendry and Hannuksela disclose, the method of claim 14, wherein the conformance checking further comprises
Hannuksela teaches about, determining that the picture referred to by each active entry in the first reference picture list or the second reference picture list is present in a decode picture buffer (DPB) and has a temporal identifier less than or equal to that of the current picture (the decoder comprises a decoded picture buffer Par.[0215] and temporal identifier TemporalId (TID) signaled in the NAL unit header, Par.[0171]).
Re Claim 16. (New) Hendry and Hannuksela disclose, the method of claim 14, wherein the conformance checking further comprises:
Hendry teaches about, determining that the picture referred to by each entry in the first reference picture list or the second reference picture list is not the current picture (by using inter-prediction, the PU is predicted from image data by motion compensation in one or more reference pictures from image data before or after the current picture thus it is not the current picture, Par.[0070]).
Re Claim 17. (New) Hendry and Hannuksela disclose, the method of claim 14, Hendry teaches about, wherein the first reference picture list is designated RefPicList[0] and the second reference picture list is designated RefPicList[1] (where the first reference picture list is “List0” and a second reference picture is list “List1”, in an inter-coded slice, i.e., of the current picture, Par.[0075, 0194]).
Re Claim 18. (New) This claim represents the encoding method, performing each and every limitation at the prediction loop of an encoder (Hendry: device 104, Par.[0076]) and in the same order as the method claim 14, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 19. (New) This claim represents the encoding method, performing each and every limitation at the prediction loop of an encoder (Hendry: device 104, Par.[0076]) and in the same order as the method claim 15, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 20. (New) This claim represents the encoding method, performing each and every limitation at the prediction loop of an encoder (Hendry: device 104, Par.[0076]) and in the same order as the method claim 16, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 21. (New) This claim represents the encoding method, performing each and every limitation at the prediction loop of an encoder (Hendry: meth of encoding device 104, Par.[0076]) and in the same order as the method claim 17, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 22. (New) This claim represents the decoding device (Hendry: decoding device 114, Par.[0083]), implementing each and every limitation of the method claim 14, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 23. (New) This claim represents the encoding device (Hendry: encoding device 104, Par.[0076]), implementing each end every limitation of the encoding method 18, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The other identified pertinent art is;
US 20170094302; US 20150237377; US 20150195564; US 20150195563; US 20140301485; and NPLs to:
Benjamin Bross et al., “VVC CODING (Draft 5), - JVET-N1001-v10, Geneva, CH, 2019;
Hendry, Futurewei Technologies Inc.AHG17: RPL Constraints for RASL and RADL Pictures, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET)of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 1116th Meeting: Geneva, CH, 1-11 October 2019 JVET-P0123-v1;
Rickard Sjöberg, et al, AHG17: Bitstream constraints on RPL and GDR, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, 16th Meeting: Geneva, CH, 1–11 October 2019, Document: JVET-P0356.
See PTO-892 form. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c) to consider these references when responding to this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRAMOS KALAPODAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4622. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-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, David Czekaj can be reached on 571-272-7327. 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.
/DRAMOS KALAPODAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights