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 § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 2-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu US 2021/0176491 in view of Bangma et al. US 2019/0200029.
Wu discloses:
2. and under similar rationale 8 and 14, and complementary rationales 20, 22, and 24, A decoder for decoding video content, the decoder comprising at least one processor (Fig. 7: processor 1402; Figs 4-6) configured to: identify, from a coded picture representing at least a portion of 360 degree content (0031): a first and second NAL unit (Fig. 10: 1004, 1008; 0059); decode a flag specifying that the coded picture includes at least two NAL units with different NAL unit types (Fig. 10: 1002, 1004, 1008; 0059-64); determine that the first NAL unit of the first spatial segment is a Random Access Decodable Leading (RADL) NAL unit type (0060-4; 0069-71); determine that the second NAL unit of the second spatial segment is a Trailing Picture (TRAIL) NAL unit type (0069-71); and decode the first segment and the second segment to reconstruct a decoded picture (Fig. 5 Rendering unit 1103).
Wu does not explicitly disclose the following, however Bangma teaches a first network abstraction layer (NAL) unit associated with a first spatial segment of the coded picture, and a second NAL unit associated with a second spatial segment of the coded picture (0016);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to allow if the location in the header data used for rewriting is the same for all individual NAL units related to the selected sub-array, a (single) predetermined location may be used (Bangma 0016)
3. and 9, and 15 The decoder of Claim 2, where in the at least one processor is further configured to: determine that the flag further indicates that the coded picture includes a first subpicture and a second subpicture, wherein the first NAL unit with the RADL NAL unit type is associated with the first subpicture, and the second NAL unit with TRAIL NAL unit type is associated with the second subpicture (0069-71).
4. and 10, 16, and part of 21, 23, 25 The decoder of claim 2, wherein the flag is a first flag; and the at least one processor is further configured to: decode a second flag indicating whether mixing of NAL unit types within the coded picture is not allowed; and determine that the first NAL unit and the second NAL unit are non-intra random access point (non-IRAP) NAL unit type (Fig. 10: 2 flags; 0116-8; 0067-71).
5. and 11, and 17 The decoder of claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine that the second flag indicates that mixing of NAL unit types within the coded picture is not allowed; and decode the first flag, the first flag indicating that all NAL units in the coded picture have the same NAL unit type (Fig. 10: 1004).
6. and 12, and 18 The decoder of claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine that the second flag indicates that mixing of NAL unit types within the coded picture is allowed; decode the first flag specifying whether the coded picture includes at least two NAL units with different NAL unit types; in response to the determination that the first flag is a first value, determine that the coded picture includes at least two NAL units with different NAL unit types; and in response to the determination that the first flag is a second value, determine that all NAL units in the coded picture have the same NAL unit types (Fig. 10).
7. and 13, and 19 and part of 21, 23, 25 The decoder of Claim 4, wherein: the first flag is associated with a parameter set (0075-80); and the second flag is associated with general constrain information (0065).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W BECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7301. The examiner can normally be reached flexible usually 10-6.
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, Joseph G Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/JOSEPH W BECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights