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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. US 12341972 B2 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Consider application claim 1, claim 1 of reference patent discloses a method implemented by a decoder, the method comprising: receiving a bitstream comprising one or more layers of coded pictures and a video parameter set (VPS), wherein the VPS includes an output layer set (OLS) mode identification code (ols_mode_idc) specifying that a total number of OLSs specified by the VPS is equal to a number of layers specified by the VPS, wherein the VPS includes a VPS maximum layers minus one (vps_max_layers_minus1) plus one that specifies the number of layers specified by the VPS, which is a maximum allowed number of layers in each coded video sequence (CVS) referring to the VPS, and wherein a total number of OLSs (TotalNumOlss) is equal to vps_max_layers_minus1 plus one when the ols_mode_idc is equal to zero; determining an output layer based on the ols_mode_idc in the VPS; and decoding a coded picture from the output layer to produce a decoded picture, wherein a number of layers in an i-th OLS (NumLayersInOls[i]), specifying the number of layers in the i-th OLS, and a layer identifier (ID) in an OLS (LayerIdInOLS[i][i]), specifying a network abstraction layer (NAL) unit header layer identifier (nuh_layer_id) value of a j-th layer in the i-th OLS, are derived as follows: TABLE-US-00013 NumLayersInOls[ 0 ] = 1 LayerIdInOls[ 0 ][ 0 ] = vps_layer_id[ 0 ] for( i = 1, i < TotalNumOlss; i++ ) { if( each_layer_is_an_ols_flag ) { NumLayersInOls[ i ] = 1 LayerIdInOls[ i ][ 0 ] = vps_layer_id[ i ] } else if( ols_mode_idc = = 0 ∥ ols_mode_idc = = 1 ) { NumLayersInOls[ i ] = i + 1 for( j = 0; j < NumLayersInOls[ i ]; j++ ) LayerIdInOls[ i ][ j ] = vps_layer_id[ j ], wherein vps_layer_id[i] is an i-th VPS layer identifier, TotalNumOlss is the total number of OLSs specified by the VPS, and an each_layer_is_an_ols_flag is an each layer is an OLS flag that specifies whether at least one OLS contains more than one layer.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 2, claim 2 of reference patent discloses the ols_mode_idc specifies that the i-th OLS includes layers with layer indices from zero to i, inclusive.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 3, claim 3 of reference patent discloses the ols_mode_idc specifies that for each OLS only a highest layer in the each OLS is the output layer.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 4, claim 4 of reference patent discloses the ols_mode_idc is equal to zero.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 5, claim 1 of reference patent discloses a method implemented by a decoder, the method comprising: receiving a bitstream comprising one or more layers of coded pictures and a video parameter set (VPS), wherein the VPS includes an output layer set (OLS) mode identification code (ols_mode_idc) specifying that a total number of OLSs specified by the VPS is equal to a number of layers specified by the VPS, wherein the VPS includes a VPS maximum layers minus one (vps_max_layers_minus1) plus one that specifies the number of layers specified by the VPS, which is a maximum allowed number of layers in each coded video sequence (CVS) referring to the VPS, and wherein a total number of OLSs (TotalNumOlss) is equal to vps_max_layers_minus1 plus one when the ols_mode_idc is equal to zero; determining an output layer based on the ols_mode_idc in the VPS; and decoding a coded picture from the output layer to produce a decoded picture, wherein a number of layers in an i-th OLS (NumLayersInOls[i]), specifying the number of layers in the i-th OLS, and a layer identifier (ID) in an OLS (LayerIdInOLS[i][i]), specifying a network abstraction layer (NAL) unit header layer identifier (nuh_layer_id) value of a j-th layer in the i-th OLS, are derived as follows: TABLE-US-00013 NumLayersInOls[ 0 ] = 1 LayerIdInOls[ 0 ][ 0 ] = vps_layer_id[ 0 ] for( i = 1, i < TotalNumOlss; i++ ) { if( each_layer_is_an_ols_flag ) { NumLayersInOls[ i ] = 1 LayerIdInOls[ i ][ 0 ] = vps_layer_id[ i ] } else if( ols_mode_idc = = 0 ∥ ols_mode_idc = = 1 ) { NumLayersInOls[ i ] = i + 1 for( j = 0; j < NumLayersInOls[ i ]; j++ ) LayerIdInOls[ i ][ j ] = vps_layer_id[ j ], wherein vps_layer_id[i] is an i-th VPS layer identifier, TotalNumOlss is the total number of OLSs specified by the VPS, and an each_layer_is_an_ols_flag is an each layer is an OLS flag that specifies whether at least one OLS contains more than one layer.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 6, claim 1 of reference patent discloses a method implemented by a decoder, the method comprising: receiving a bitstream comprising one or more layers of coded pictures and a video parameter set (VPS), wherein the VPS includes an output layer set (OLS) mode identification code (ols_mode_idc) specifying that a total number of OLSs specified by the VPS is equal to a number of layers specified by the VPS, wherein the VPS includes a VPS maximum layers minus one (vps_max_layers_minus1) plus one that specifies the number of layers specified by the VPS, which is a maximum allowed number of layers in each coded video sequence (CVS) referring to the VPS, and wherein a total number of OLSs (TotalNumOlss) is equal to vps_max_layers_minus1 plus one when the ols_mode_idc is equal to zero; determining an output layer based on the ols_mode_idc in the VPS; and decoding a coded picture from the output layer to produce a decoded picture, wherein a number of layers in an i-th OLS (NumLayersInOls[i]), specifying the number of layers in the i-th OLS, and a layer identifier (ID) in an OLS (LayerIdInOLS[i][i]), specifying a network abstraction layer (NAL) unit header layer identifier (nuh_layer_id) value of a j-th layer in the i-th OLS, are derived as follows: TABLE-US-00013 NumLayersInOls[ 0 ] = 1 LayerIdInOls[ 0 ][ 0 ] = vps_layer_id[ 0 ] for( i = 1, i < TotalNumOlss; i++ ) { if( each_layer_is_an_ols_flag ) { NumLayersInOls[ i ] = 1 LayerIdInOls[ i ][ 0 ] = vps_layer_id[ i ] } else if( ols_mode_idc = = 0 ∥ ols_mode_idc = = 1 ) { NumLayersInOls[ i ] = i + 1 for( j = 0; j < NumLayersInOls[ i ]; j++ ) LayerIdInOls[ i ][ j ] = vps_layer_id[ j ], wherein vps_layer_id[i] is an i-th VPS layer identifier, TotalNumOlss is the total number of OLSs specified by the VPS, and an each_layer_is_an_ols_flag is an each layer is an OLS flag that specifies whether at least one OLS contains more than one layer.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 7, claim 5 of reference patent discloses A method implemented by an encoder, the method comprising: encoding a bitstream comprising one or more layers of coded pictures; encoding into the bitstream a video parameter set (VPS), wherein the VPS includes an output layer set (OLS) mode identification code (ols_mode_idc) specifying that a total number of OLSs specified by the VPS is equal to a number of layers specified by the VPS, wherein the VPS includes a VPS maximum layers minus one (vps_max_layers_minus1) plus one that specifies the number of layers specified by the VPS, which is a maximum allowed number of layers in each coded video sequence (CVS) referring to the VPS, and wherein a total number of OLSs (TotalNumOlss) is equal to vps_max_layers_minus1 plus one when the ols_mode_idc is equal to zero; and storing the bitstream, wherein a number of layers in an i-th OLS (NumLayersInOls[i]), specifying the number of layers in the i-th OLS, and a layer identifier (ID) in an OLS (LayerIdInOLS[i][i]), specifying a network abstraction layer (NAL) unit header layer identifier (nuh_layer_id) value of a j-th layer in the i-th OLS, are derived as follows: TABLE-US-00014 NumLayersInOls[ 0 ] = 1 LayerIdInOls[ 0 ][ 0 ] = vps_layer_id[ 0 ] for( i = 1, i < TotalNumOlss; i++ ) { if( each_layer_is_an_ols_flag ) { NumLayersInOls[ i ] = 1 LayerIdInOls[ i ][ 0 ] = vps_layer_id[ i ] } else if( ols_mode_idc = = 0 ∥ ols_mode_idc = = 1 ) { NumLayersInOls[ i ] = i + 1 for( j = 0; j < NumLayersInOls[ i ]; j++ ) LayerIdInOls[ i ][ j ] = vps_layer_id[ j ], wherein vps_layer_id[i] is an i-th VPS layer identifier, TotalNumOlss is the total number of OLSs specified by the VPS, and an each_layer_is_an_ols_flag is an each layer is an OLS flag that specifies whether at least one OLS contains more than one layer.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 8, claim 6 of reference patent discloses the ols_mode_idc specifies that the i-th OLS includes layers with layer indices from zero to i, inclusive
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 9, claim 7 of reference patent discloses the ols_mode_idc specifies that for each OLS only a highest layer in the each OLS is the output layer.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 10, claim 8 of reference patent discloses the ols_mode_idc is equal to zero.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 11, claim 5 of reference patent discloses A method implemented by an encoder, the method comprising: encoding a bitstream comprising one or more layers of coded pictures; encoding into the bitstream a video parameter set (VPS), wherein the VPS includes an output layer set (OLS) mode identification code (ols_mode_idc) specifying that a total number of OLSs specified by the VPS is equal to a number of layers specified by the VPS, wherein the VPS includes a VPS maximum layers minus one (vps_max_layers_minus1) plus one that specifies the number of layers specified by the VPS, which is a maximum allowed number of layers in each coded video sequence (CVS) referring to the VPS, and wherein a total number of OLSs (TotalNumOlss) is equal to vps_max_layers_minus1 plus one when the ols_mode_idc is equal to zero; and storing the bitstream, wherein a number of layers in an i-th OLS (NumLayersInOls[i]), specifying the number of layers in the i-th OLS, and a layer identifier (ID) in an OLS (LayerIdInOLS[i][i]), specifying a network abstraction layer (NAL) unit header layer identifier (nuh_layer_id) value of a j-th layer in the i-th OLS, are derived as follows: TABLE-US-00014 NumLayersInOls[ 0 ] = 1 LayerIdInOls[ 0 ][ 0 ] = vps_layer_id[ 0 ] for( i = 1, i < TotalNumOlss; i++ ) { if( each_layer_is_an_ols_flag ) { NumLayersInOls[ i ] = 1 LayerIdInOls[ i ][ 0 ] = vps_layer_id[ i ] } else if( ols_mode_idc = = 0 ∥ ols_mode_idc = = 1 ) { NumLayersInOls[ i ] = i + 1 for( j = 0; j < NumLayersInOls[ i ]; j++ ) LayerIdInOls[ i ][ j ] = vps_layer_id[ j ], wherein vps_layer_id[i] is an i-th VPS layer identifier, TotalNumOlss is the total number of OLSs specified by the VPS, and an each_layer_is_an_ols_flag is an each layer is an OLS flag that specifies whether at least one OLS contains more than one layer.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 12, claim 5 of reference patent discloses A method implemented by an encoder, the method comprising: encoding a bitstream comprising one or more layers of coded pictures; encoding into the bitstream a video parameter set (VPS), wherein the VPS includes an output layer set (OLS) mode identification code (ols_mode_idc) specifying that a total number of OLSs specified by the VPS is equal to a number of layers specified by the VPS, wherein the VPS includes a VPS maximum layers minus one (vps_max_layers_minus1) plus one that specifies the number of layers specified by the VPS, which is a maximum allowed number of layers in each coded video sequence (CVS) referring to the VPS, and wherein a total number of OLSs (TotalNumOlss) is equal to vps_max_layers_minus1 plus one when the ols_mode_idc is equal to zero; and storing the bitstream, wherein a number of layers in an i-th OLS (NumLayersInOls[i]), specifying the number of layers in the i-th OLS, and a layer identifier (ID) in an OLS (LayerIdInOLS[i][i]), specifying a network abstraction layer (NAL) unit header layer identifier (nuh_layer_id) value of a j-th layer in the i-th OLS, are derived as follows: TABLE-US-00014 NumLayersInOls[ 0 ] = 1 LayerIdInOls[ 0 ][ 0 ] = vps_layer_id[ 0 ] for( i = 1, i < TotalNumOlss; i++ ) { if( each_layer_is_an_ols_flag ) { NumLayersInOls[ i ] = 1 LayerIdInOls[ i ][ 0 ] = vps_layer_id[ i ] } else if( ols_mode_idc = = 0 ∥ ols_mode_idc = = 1 ) { NumLayersInOls[ i ] = i + 1 for( j = 0; j < NumLayersInOls[ i ]; j++ ) LayerIdInOls[ i ][ j ] = vps_layer_id[ j ], wherein vps_layer_id[i] is an i-th VPS layer identifier, TotalNumOlss is the total number of OLSs specified by the VPS, and an each_layer_is_an_ols_flag is an each layer is an OLS flag that specifies whether at least one OLS contains more than one layer.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 13, application claim 13 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method implemented by the application claim 7. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 14, application claim 14 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method implemented by the application claim 8. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 15, application claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method implemented by the application claim 9. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 16, application claim 16 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method implemented by the application claim 10. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 17, application claim 17 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method implemented by the application claim 11. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 18, application claim 18 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method implemented by the application claim 12. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 11-14, 17-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. US 12081783 B2 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Consider application claim 1, claim 1 of reference patent discloses A method implemented by a decoder, the method comprising: receiving a bitstream comprising an output layer set (OLS) and a video parameter set (VPS), wherein the OLS includes one or more layers of coded pictures and the VPS includes an OLS mode identification code (ols_mode_idc) specifying that, for each OLS, all layers in each OLS are output layers, wherein the VPS includes a VPS maximum layers minus one (vps_max_layers_minus1) plus one that specifies a number of layers specified by the VPS, which is a maximum allowed number of layers in each coded video sequence (CVS) referring to the VPS, and wherein the ols_mode_idc specifies that a total number of OLSs specified by the VPS is equal to the number of layers specified by the VPS where an i-th OLS includes layers with layer indices from zero to i, inclusive; determining the output layers based on the ols_mode_idc in the VPS; and decoding a coded picture from the output layers to produce a decoded picture.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 2, claim 1 of reference patent discloses A method implemented by a decoder, the method comprising: receiving a bitstream comprising an output layer set (OLS) and a video parameter set (VPS), wherein the OLS includes one or more layers of coded pictures and the VPS includes an OLS mode identification code (ols_mode_idc) specifying that, for each OLS, all layers in each OLS are output layers, wherein the VPS includes a VPS maximum layers minus one (vps_max_layers_minus1) plus one that specifies a number of layers specified by the VPS, which is a maximum allowed number of layers in each coded video sequence (CVS) referring to the VPS, and wherein the ols_mode_idc specifies that a total number of OLSs specified by the VPS is equal to the number of layers specified by the VPS where an i-th OLS includes layers with layer indices from zero to i, inclusive; determining the output layers based on the ols_mode_idc in the VPS; and decoding a coded picture from the output layers to produce a decoded picture.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 5, claim 3 of reference patent discloses a total number of OLSs (TotalNumOlss) is equal to vps_max_layers_minus1 plus one when the ols_mode_idc is equal to zero or when the ols_mode_idc is equal to one.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 6, claim 4 of reference patent discloses a number of layers in an i-th OLS (NumLayersInOls[i]), specifying the number of layers in the i-th OLS, and a layer identifier (ID) in an OLS (LayerIdInOLS[i][j]), specifying a network abstraction layer (NAL) unit header layer identifier (nuh_layer_id) value of a j-th layer in the i-th OLS, are derived as follows: TABLE-US-00012 NumLayersInOls[ 0 ] = 1 LayerIdInOls[ 0 ][ 0 ] = vps_layer_id[ 0 ] for( i = 1, i < TotalNumOlss; i++ ) { if( each_layer_is_an_ols_flag ) { NumLayersInOls[ i ] = 1 LayerIdInOls[ i ][ 0 ] = vps_layer_id[ i ] } else if( ols_mode_idc = = 0 | | ols_mode_idc = = 1 ) { NumLayersInOls[ i ] = i + 1 for( j = 0; j < NumLayersInOls[ i ]; j++ ) LayerIdInOls[ i ][ j ] = vps_layer_id[ i ] wherein vps_layer_id[i] is an i-th VPS layer identifier, TotalNumOlss is a total number of OLSs specified by the VPS, and an each_layer_is_an_ols_flag is an each layer is an OLS flag that specifies whether at least one OLS contains more than one layer.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 7, claim 5 of reference patent discloses A method implemented by an encoder, the method comprising: encoding a bitstream comprising one or more output layer sets (OLSs) including one or more layers of coded pictures; encoding into the bitstream a video parameter set (VPS), wherein the VPS includes an OLS mode identification code (ols_mode_idc) specifying that for each OLS, all layers in each OLS are output layers, wherein the VPS includes a VPS maximum layers minus one (vps_max_layers_minus1) plus one that specifies a number of layers specified by the VPS, which is a maximum allowed number of layers in each coded video sequence (CVS) referring to the VPS, and wherein the ols_mode_idc specifies that a total number of OLSs specified by the VPS is equal to the number of layers specified by the VPS where an i-th OLS includes layers with layer indices from zero to i, inclusive; and storing the bitstream for communication toward a decoder.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 8, claim 5 of reference patent discloses A method implemented by an encoder, the method comprising: encoding a bitstream comprising one or more output layer sets (OLSs) including one or more layers of coded pictures; encoding into the bitstream a video parameter set (VPS), wherein the VPS includes an OLS mode identification code (ols_mode_idc) specifying that for each OLS, all layers in each OLS are output layers, wherein the VPS includes a VPS maximum layers minus one (vps_max_layers_minus1) plus one that specifies a number of layers specified by the VPS, which is a maximum allowed number of layers in each coded video sequence (CVS) referring to the VPS, and wherein the ols_mode_idc specifies that a total number of OLSs specified by the VPS is equal to the number of layers specified by the VPS where an i-th OLS includes layers with layer indices from zero to i, inclusive; and storing the bitstream for communication toward a decoder.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 11, claim 7 of reference patent discloses a total number of OLSs (TotalNumOlss) is equal to vps_max_layers_minus1 plus one when the ols_mode_idc is equal to zero or when the ols_mode_idc is equal to one.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 12, claim 8 of reference patent discloses a number of layers in an i-th OLS (NumLayersInOls[i]), specifying the number of layers in the i-th OLS, and a layer identifier (ID) in an OLS (LayerIdInOLS[i][j]), specifying a network abstraction layer (NAL) unit header layer identifier (nuh_layer_id) value of a j-th layer in the i-th OLS, are derived as follows: TABLE-US-00013 NumLayersInOls[ 0 ] = 1 LayerIdInOls[ 0 ][ 0 ] = vps_layer_id[ 0 ] for( i = 1, i < TotalNumOlss; i++ ) { if( each_layer_is_an_ols_flag ) { NumLayersInOls[ i ] = 1 LayerIdInOls[ i ][ 0 ] = vps_layer_id[ i ] } else if( ols_mode_idc = = 0 | | ols_mode_idc = = 1 ) { NumLayersInOls[ i ] = i + 1 for( j = 0; j < NumLayersInOls[ i ]; j++ ) LayerIdInOls[ i ][ j ] = vyps_layer_id[ j ] wherein vps_layer_id[i] is an i-th VPS layer identifier, TotalNumOlss is a total number of OLSs specified by the VPS, and an each_layer_is_an_ols_flag is an each layer is an OLS flag that specifies whether at least one OLS contains more than one layer.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 13, application claim 13 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method implemented by the application claim 7. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 14, application claim 14 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method implemented by the application claim 8. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 17, application claim 17 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method implemented by the application claim 11. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 18, application claim 18 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method implemented by the application claim 12. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 3-4, 9-10, 15-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. US 12081783 B2 (reference patent) in view of Wang (US 12,341,972 B2).
Consider application claim 3, claims of reference patent disclose all the limitations in application claim 2 but do not explicitly teach the ols_mode_idc specifies that for each OLS only a highest layer in the each OLS is the output layer.
Wang teaches the ols_mode_idc specifies that for each OLS only a highest layer in the each OLS is the output layer (claim 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known element of ols_mode_idc specifying that for each OLS only a highest layer in the each OLS is the output layer because such incorporation would provide efficient signaling to allow a video sequence to be correctly and efficiently employed. Col. 23, lines 59-62.
Consider application claim 4, claim 3 of reference patent discloses a total number of OLSs (TotalNumOlss) is equal to vps_max_layers_minus1 plus one when the ols_mode_idc is equal to zero or when the ols_mode_idc is equal to one.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 9, Wang teaches the ols_mode_idc specifies that for each OLS only a highest layer in the each OLS is the output layer (claim 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known element of ols_mode_idc specifying that for each OLS only a highest layer in the each OLS is the output layer because such incorporation would provide efficient signaling to allow a video sequence to be correctly and efficiently employed. Col. 23, lines 59-62.
Consider application claim 10, claim 7 of reference patent discloses a total number of OLSs (TotalNumOlss) is equal to vps_max_layers_minus1 plus one when the ols_mode_idc is equal to zero or when the ols_mode_idc is equal to one.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 15, application claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method implemented by the application claim 9. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 16, application claim 16 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method implemented by the application claim 10. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 11-14, 17-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. US 12647594 B2 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Consider application claim 1, claim 1 of reference patent discloses A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a computer program product for use by a video coding device, the computer program product comprising computer executable instructions stored on the non-transitory computer readable medium such that when executed by a processor cause the video coding device to: obtain a bitstream comprising an output layer set (OLS) and a video parameter set (VPS), wherein the OLS includes one or more layers of coded pictures and the VPS includes an OLS mode identification code (ols_mode_idc) specifying that, for each OLS, all layers in each OLS are output layers, wherein the VPS includes a VPS maximum layers minus one (vps_max_layers_minus1) plus one that specifies a number of layers specified by the VPS, which is a maximum allowed number of layers in each coded video sequence (CVS) referring to the VPS, and wherein the ols_mode_idc specifies that a total number of OLSs specified by the VPS is equal to the number of layers specified by the VPS where an i-th OLS includes layers with layer indices from zero to i, inclusive; determine the output layers based on the ols_mode_idc in the VPS; and decode a coded picture from the output layers to produce a decoded picture.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 2, claim 1 of reference patent discloses A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a computer program product for use by a video coding device, the computer program product comprising computer executable instructions stored on the non-transitory computer readable medium such that when executed by a processor cause the video coding device to: obtain a bitstream comprising an output layer set (OLS) and a video parameter set (VPS), wherein the OLS includes one or more layers of coded pictures and the VPS includes an OLS mode identification code (ols_mode_idc) specifying that, for each OLS, all layers in each OLS are output layers, wherein the VPS includes a VPS maximum layers minus one (vps_max_layers_minus1) plus one that specifies a number of layers specified by the VPS, which is a maximum allowed number of layers in each coded video sequence (CVS) referring to the VPS, and wherein the ols_mode_idc specifies that a total number of OLSs specified by the VPS is equal to the number of layers specified by the VPS where an i-th OLS includes layers with layer indices from zero to i, inclusive; determine the output layers based on the ols_mode_idc in the VPS; and decode a coded picture from the output layers to produce a decoded picture.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 5, claim 3 of reference patent discloses a total number of OLSs (TotalNumOlss) is equal to vps_max_layers_minus1 plus one when the ols_mode_idc is equal to zero or when the ols_mode_idc is equal to one.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 6, claim 6 of reference patent discloses a number of layers in an i-th OLS (NumLayersInOls[i]), specifying the number of layers in the i-th OLS, and a layer identifier (ID) in an OLS (LayerIdInOLS[i][j]), specifying a network abstraction layer (NAL) unit header layer identifier (nuh_layer_id) value of a j-th layer in the i-th OLS, are derived as follows: TABLE-US-00012 NumLayersInOls[ 0 ] = 1LayerIdInOls[ 0 ][ 0 ] = vps_layer_id[ 0 ]for( i = 1, i < TotalNumOlss; i++ ) { if( each_layer_is_an_ols_flag ) { NumLayersInOls[ i ] = 1 LayerIdInOls[ i ][ 0 ] = vps_layer_id[ i ] } else if( ols_mode_idc = = 0 | | ols_mode_idc = = 1 ) { NumLayersInOls[ i ] = i + 1 for( j = 0; j < NumLayersInOls[ i ]; j++ ) LayerIdInOls[ i ][ j ] = vps_layer_id[ i ] wherein vps_layer_id[i] is an i-th VPS layer identifier, TotalNumOlss is a total number of OLSs specified by the VPS, and an each_layer_is_an_ols_flag is an each layer is an OLS flag that specifies whether at least one OLS contains more than one layer.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 7, claim 7 of reference patent discloses A video coding device comprising: one or more processors configured to: encode a bitstream comprising one or more output layer sets (OLSs) including one or more layers of coded pictures; and encode into the bitstream a video parameter set (VPS), wherein the VPS includes an OLS mode identification code (ols_mode_idc) specifying that for each OLS, all layers in each OLS are output layers, wherein the VPS includes a VPS maximum layers minus one (vps_max_layers_minus1) plus one that specifies a number of layers specified by the VPS, which is a maximum allowed number of layers in each coded video sequence (CVS) referring to the VPS, and wherein the ols_mode_idc specifies that a total number of OLSs specified by the VPS is equal to the number of layers specified by the VPS where an i-th OLS includes layers with layer indices from zero to i, inclusive; and a memory coupled to the processors and configured to store the bitstream.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 8, claim 7 of reference patent discloses A video coding device comprising: one or more processors configured to: encode a bitstream comprising one or more output layer sets (OLSs) including one or more layers of coded pictures; and encode into the bitstream a video parameter set (VPS), wherein the VPS includes an OLS mode identification code (ols_mode_idc) specifying that for each OLS, all layers in each OLS are output layers, wherein the VPS includes a VPS maximum layers minus one (vps_max_layers_minus1) plus one that specifies a number of layers specified by the VPS, which is a maximum allowed number of layers in each coded video sequence (CVS) referring to the VPS, and wherein the ols_mode_idc specifies that a total number of OLSs specified by the VPS is equal to the number of layers specified by the VPS where an i-th OLS includes layers with layer indices from zero to i, inclusive; and a memory coupled to the processors and configured to store the bitstream.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 11, claim 9 of reference patent discloses a total number of OLSs (TotalNumOlss) is equal to vps_max_layers_minus1 plus one when the ols_mode_idc is equal to zero or when the ols_mode_idc is equal to one.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 12, claim 12 of reference patent discloses a number of layers in an i-th OLS (NumLayersInOls[i]), specifying the number of layers in the i-th OLS, and a layer identifier (ID) in an OLS (LayerIdInOLS[i][j]), specifying a network abstraction layer (NAL) unit header layer identifier (nuh_layer_id) value of a j-th layer in the i-th OLS, are derived as follows: TABLE-US-00013 NumLayersInOls[ 0 ] = 1LayerIdInOls[ 0 ][ 0 ] = vps_layer_id[ 0 ]for( i = 1, i < TotalNumOlss; i++ ) { if( each_layer_is_an_ols_flag ) { NumLayersInOls[ i ] = 1 LayerIdInOls[ i ][ 0 ] = vps_layer_id[ i ] } else if( ols_mode_idc = = 0 | | ols_mode_idc = = 1 ) { NumLayersInOls[ i ] = i + 1 for( j = 0; j < NumLayersInOls[ i ]; j++ ) LayerIdInOls[ i ][ j ] = vyps_layer_id[ j ] wherein vps_layer_id[i] is an i-th VPS layer identifier, TotalNumOlss is a total number of OLSs specified by the VPS, and an each_layer_is_an_ols_flag is an each layer is an OLS flag that specifies whether at least one OLS contains more than one layer.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 13, application claim 13 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method implemented by the application claim 7. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 14, application claim 14 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method implemented by the application claim 8. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 17, application claim 17 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method implemented by the application claim 11. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 18, application claim 18 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method implemented by the application claim 12. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 3-4, 9-10, 15-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. US 12647594 B2 (reference patent) in view of Wang (US 1,234,972 B2).
Consider application claim 3, claims of reference patent disclose all the limitations in application claim 2 but do not explicitly teach the ols_mode_idc specifies that for each OLS only a highest layer in the each OLS is the output layer.
Wang teaches the ols_mode_idc specifies that for each OLS only a highest layer in the each OLS is the output layer (claim 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known element of ols_mode_idc specifying that for each OLS only a highest layer in the each OLS is the output layer because such incorporation would provide efficient signaling to allow a video sequence to be correctly and efficiently employed. Col. 23, lines 59-62.
Consider application claim 4, claim 3 of reference patent discloses a total number of OLSs (TotalNumOlss) is equal to vps_max_layers_minus1 plus one when the ols_mode_idc is equal to zero or when the ols_mode_idc is equal to one.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 9, Wang teaches the ols_mode_idc specifies that for each OLS only a highest layer in the each OLS is the output layer (claim 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known element of ols_mode_idc specifying that for each OLS only a highest layer in the each OLS is the output layer because such incorporation would provide efficient signaling to allow a video sequence to be correctly and efficiently employed. Col. 23, lines 59-62.
Consider application claim 10, claim 9 of reference patent discloses a total number of OLSs (TotalNumOlss) is equal to vps_max_layers_minus1 plus one when the ols_mode_idc is equal to zero or when the ols_mode_idc is equal to one.
Claims of reference disclose all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies.
Consider application claim 15, application claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method implemented by the application claim 9. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider application claim 16, application claim 16 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method implemented by the application claim 10. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
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)(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) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Deshpande (US 2022/0345745 A1).
Consider claim 1, Deshpande teaches a decoder comprising: a receiver configured to receive a bitstream ([0630] – [0633] and Fig. 6) comprising one or more layers of coded pictures ([0067] – [0086] and [0517] – [0528]) and a video parameter set (VPS) ([0067] – [0086] and [0517] – [0528]), wherein the VPS includes an output layer set (OLS) mode identification code (ols_mode_idc) specifying that a total number of OLSs specified by the VPS is equal to a number of layers specified by the VPS ([0067] – [0086] and [0517] – [0528]), wherein the VPS includes a VPS maximum layers minus one (vps_max_layers_minus1) plus one that specifies the number of layers specified by the VPS, which is a maximum allowed number of layers in each coded video sequence (CVS) referring to the VPS ([0067] – [0086], [0487] – [0489], and [0517] – [0528]); and one or more processors coupled to the receiver and configured to: determine an output layer based on the ols_mode_idc in the VPS ([0067] – [0086] and [0517] – [0528]); and decode a coded picture from the output layer to produce a decoded picture ([0633] – [0634], [0067] – [0086] and [0517] – [0528], and Fig. 6).
Consider claim 2, Deshpande teaches the ols_mode_idc specifies that an i-th OLS includes layers with layer indices from zero to i, inclusive ([0067] – [0086] and [0517] – [0528]).
Consider claim 3, Deshpande teaches the ols_mode_idc specifies that for each OLS only a highest layer in the each OLS is the output layer ([0067] – [0086] and [0517] – [0528]).
Consider claim 4, Deshpande teaches the ols_mode_idc is equal to zero ([0067] – [0086] and [0517] – [0528]).
Consider claim 5, Deshpande teaches a total number of OLSs (TotalNumOlss) is equal to vps_max_layers_minus1 plus one when the ols_mode_idc is equal to zero or when the ols_mode_idc is equal to one ([0067] – [0086] and [0517] – [0528]).
Consider claim 6, Deshpande teaches a number of layers in an i-th OLS (NumLayersInOls[i]), specifying the number of layers in an i-th OLS, and a layer identifier (ID) in an OLS (LayerIdInOLS[i][j]), specifying a network abstraction layer (NAL) unit header layer identifier (nuh_layer_id) value of a j-th layer in the i-th OLS, are derived as follows: TABLE-US-00012 NumLayersInOls[ 0 ] = 1 LayerIdInOls[ 0 ][ 0 ] = vps_layer_id[ 0 ] for( i = 1, i < TotalNumOlss; i++ ) { if( each_layer_is_an_ols_flag ) { NumLayersInOls[ i ] = 1 LayerIdInOls[ i ][ 0 ] = vps_layer_id[ i ] } else if( ols_mode_idc = = 0 ∥ ols_mode_idc = = 1 ) { NumLayersInOls[ i ] = i + 1 for( j = 0; j < NumLayersInOls[ i ]; j++ ) LayerIdInOls[ i ][ j ] = vps_layer_id[ j ], wherein vps_layer_id[i] is an i-th VPS layer identifier, TotalNumOlss is a total number of OLSs specified by the VPS, and an each_layer_is_an_ols_flag is an each layer is an OLS flag that specifies whether at least one OLS contains more than one layer ([0067] – [0086] and [0517] – [0528]).
Consider claim 7, Deshpande teaches an encoder comprising: one or more processors configured to: encode a bitstream ([0238] – [0239] and Fig. 5) comprising one or more layers of coded pictures ([0067] – [0086] and [0517] – [0528]); and encode into the bitstream, by the encoder, a video parameter set (VPS) ([0067] – [0086] and [0517] – [0528]), wherein the VPS includes an output layer set (OLS) mode identification code (ols_mode_idc) specifying that a total number of OLSs specified by the VPS is equal to a number of layers specified by the VPS ([0067] – [0086] and [0517] – [0528]), wherein the VPS includes a VPS maximum layers minus one (vps_max_layers_minus1) plus one that specifies the number of layers specified by the VPS, which is a maximum allowed number of layers in each coded video sequence (CVS) referring to the VPS ([0067] – [0086], [0487] – [0489], and [0517] – [0528]); and a memory coupled to the one or more processors ([0635]) and configured to store the bitstream ([0229] – [0330] and Fig. 1).
Consider claim 8, Deshpande teaches the ols_mode_idc specifies that an i-th OLS includes layers with layer indices from zero to i, inclusive ([0067] – [0086] and [0517] – [0528]).
Consider claim 9, Deshpande teaches the ols_mode_idc specifies that for each OLS only the highest layer in the each OLS is an output layer ([0067] – [0086] and [0517] – [0528]).
Consider claim 10, Deshpande teaches the ols_mode_idc is equal to zero ([0067] – [0086] and [0517] – [0528]).
Consider claim 11, Deshpande teaches a total number of OLSs (TotalNumOlss) is equal to vps_max_layers_minus1 plus one when the ols_mode_idc is equal to zero or when the ols_mode_idc is equal to one ([0067] – [0086] and [0517] – [0528]).
Consider claim 12, Deshpande teaches a number of layers in an i-th OLS (NumLayersInOls[i]), specifying the number of layers in an i-th OLS, and a layer identifier (ID) in an OLS (LayerIdInOLS[i][j]), specifying a network abstraction layer (NAL) unit header layer identifier (nuh_layer_id) value of a j-th layer in the i-th OLS, are derived as follows: TABLE-US-00013 NumLayersInOls[ 0 ] = 1 LayerIdInOls[ 0 ][ 0 ] = vps_layer_id[ 0 ] for( i = 1, i < TotalNumOlss; i++ ) { if( each_layer_is_an_ols_flag ) { NumLayersInOls[ i ] = 1 LayerIdInOls[ i ][ 0 ] = vps_layer_id[ i ] } else if( ols_mode_idc = = 0 ∥ ols_mode_idc = = 1 ) { NumLayersInOls[ i ] = i + 1 for( j = 0; j < NumLayersInOls[ i ]; j++ ) LayerIdInOls[ i ][ j ] = vps_layer_id[ j ] wherein vps_layer_id[i] is an i-th VPS layer identifier, TotalNumOlss is a total number of OLSs specified by the VPS, and an each_layer_is_an_ols_flag is an each layer is an OLS flag that specifies whether at least one OLS contains more than one layer. ([0067] – [0086] and [0517] – [0528]).
Consider claims 13-18, A bitstream generated by a method, the method comprising… is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claims 13-18 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Deshpande which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream ([0230] – [0231], [0628] – [0629]).
Alternatively, if the limitations in claims 13-18 are found to be given patentable weight, claims 13-18 are rejected as follows:
Consider claim 13, claim 13 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method implemented by claim 7. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 14, claim 14 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method implemented by claim 8. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 15, claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method implemented by claim 9. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 16, claim 16 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method implemented by claim 10. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 17, claim 17 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method implemented by claim 11. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 18, claim 18 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method implemented by claim 12. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAT CHI CHIO whose telephone number is (571)272-9563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-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, JAMIE J ATALA can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/TAT C CHIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights