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 .
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, 5-6, 8, 10-12, 15-16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hendry et al. (US 2025/0119530).
Regarding claim 1, Hendry discloses a method for decoding a slice in a coded picture from a bitstream (see figs. 1 and 16), the method comprising: decoding (see 310 in fig. 3) a first syntax element from a picture header included in the bitstream (see S1600 in fig. 16; e.g. see ¶ [0134]), wherein the picture header is associated with the coded picture (e.g. see ¶ [0134]), and the first syntax element indicates whether the coded picture may contain bi-predictive slices or not (e.g. see ¶ [0134]); decoding a fourth syntax element (see S1620 in fig. 16; e.g. see ¶ [0185]) from the bitstream, wherein the fourth syntax element indicates if the picture header associated with the coded picture is included in a picture header network abstraction layer (NAL) unit that is different from a NAL unit comprising the slice (e.g. see ¶ [0185]); based on the first syntax element and the fourth syntax element, deriving a parameter to be used for decoding the slice by either (a) decoding the parameter from the picture header associated with the coded picture (see S1630 in fig. 16; e.g. see ¶ [0189]) or (b) inferring the parameter; and decoding the slice in the coded picture based on the derived parameter (see S1630 in fig. 16).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Hendry further discloses wherein the picture header is included in a picture header NAL unit in the bitstream (e.g. see ¶ [0134]).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Hendry further discloses wherein the fourth syntax element is decoded from: a slice header associated with the slice, decoding capability information, an access unit delimiter, or a picture parameter set (e.g. see ¶ [0134]).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Hendry further discloses wherein determining that the fourth syntax element indicates that the picture header associated with the coded picture is comprised in a picture header NAL unit different from the slice NAL unit (e.g. see ¶ [0185]), and deriving the parameter comprises decoding the parameter from the bitstream as a result of determining that the fourth syntax element indicates that the picture header associated with the coded picture is comprised in a picture header NAL unit different from the slice NAL unit (see S1610-S1620 in fig. 16).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Hendry further discloses wherein the parameter is a collocated from L0 flag (e.g. see ¶ [0069]).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Hendry further discloses wherein the coded picture is either: a coded picture that may contain bi-predictive slices, which is a coded picture that may contain slices of a type that specifies that a slice may contain blocks that are predicted using bi-prediction, or a coded picture that may not contain bi-predictive slices, which is a coded picture that does not contain any slice of a type that specifies that a slice may contain blocks that are predicted using bi-prediction (e.g. see IDR in ¶ [0189]).
Regarding claim 11, the claim(s) recites an apparatus (see fig. 3) with analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
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 3-4, 7, 9, 13-14, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendry.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Hendry further discloses wherein the method further comprises decoding a third syntax element from the bitstream, the third syntax element indicates whether the coded picture may contain inter coded slices or not (e.g. see ¶ [0069], [0134]), and the parameter is derived further based on the third syntax element (see 332 in fig. 3, wherein it is obvious that inter prediction parameter is derived for inter prediction 332).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Hendry further discloses wherein the third syntax element is decoded from: the picture header associated with the coded picture, decoding capability information, an access unit delimiter, or a parameter set (e.g. see ¶ [0133]).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Hendry further discloses wherein deriving the parameter comprises: decoding the parameter from the bitstream if the first syntax element indicates that the coded picture may contain bi-predictive slices (e.g. see ¶ [0134]; see 332 in fig. 3, wherein it is obvious that inter prediction parameter is derived for inter prediction 332), or inferring the parameter if the first syntax element indicates that the coded picture shall not contain bi-predictive slices.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Hendry further discloses wherein deriving the parameter comprises inferring the parameter, and inferring the parameter comprises inferring the parameter to be either a constant value or a value that is derived from one or more other parameters which are decoded from the bitstream (e.g. see ¶ [0194], wherein it is implied that having the same NAL type means inferring the same NAL parameter for other slices).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that Hendry does not disclose “the first syntax element indicates whether the coded picture may contain bi-predictive slices or not“ because “a disclosure of a picture header (PH) that includes syntax elements necessary for an intra slice of a picture and an inter slice of a picture is not itself a disclosure of a PH including a syntax element that "indicates whether the coded picture may contain bi-predictive slices or not." The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The argued limitation calls for “the first syntax element indicates whether the coded picture may contain bi-predictive slices or not“. Hendry ¶ [0134] stated that "the PH may include syntax elements necessary for an intra slice of a picture and an inter slice of a picture." This clearly indicated that the picture header PH may contains syntax directly or indirectly indicating the coded picture contains bi-predictive slices or not.
Applicant next argued that “The Office, however, has provided no evidence that the Hendry provisional application includes the subject matter described in paragraph 134 of Hendry” The Examiner disagrees. Hendry Non-Provisional ¶ [0134] is reflected in Provisional ¶ [0042], [0056]-[0058].
Therefore, the Examiner maintains all limitations are met.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Wang et al. (US 2025/0240455), discloses decoding syntax indicating prediction mode.
2. Laroche et al. (US 2023/0065112), discloses high level syntax for video decoding.
3. Wang et al. (US 2025/0240455), discloses syntax indicating bi-directional coding.
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 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 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