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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on 31 October 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 6-11, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: what is done with the first limitation’s determination? The maximum number of ordered sublayer representations in the video bitstream is determined to be greater than or equal to 3, but no connection with any other limitation is found until claims 20 and 23 where a similar but different (is equal to 3) determination is used to infer a syntax element.
Claims 6-8, 11, and 16-18 recites the limitation "a syntax element". It is unclear if these are separate or the same as previously disclosed “syntax elements” and therefore antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim may be unclear. For example, Claim 8 recites “the third sublayer level value is derived based on a syntax element”, and may be read either of the first or second syntax elements previously described may be used. Examiner recommends continuing the numerical descriptor scheme found in the independent claims when introducing new descriptors with similar names (i.e. a third syntax element).
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 1-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12363305. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the process with an upper bound, improving computational efficiency.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-11, 13-19, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deshpande (US 10841619 B2).
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 10, Deshpande discloses a method performed via a CRM on an apparatus, the apparatus comprising: processing circuitry; and a memory, said memory containing instructions executable by said processing circuitry for configuring the apparatus to perform a method for processing a video bitstream, the method comprising: determining the maximum number of ordered sublayer representations to be greater than or equal to 3 [Deshpande: Col. 31, ll. 21-25: sps_max_sub_layers_minus1 plus 1 may specify the maximum number of temporal sub-layers that may be present in each CVS referring to the SPS. The value of sps_max_sub_layers_minus1 may be in the range of 0 to 6, inclusive. The value of sps_max_sub_layers_minus1 may be less than or equal to vps_max_sub_layers_minus1], wherein the ordered sublayer representations comprise a first sublayer representation, a second sublayer representation, and a third sublaye[Deshpande: Col. 37, ll. 42-50: In yet another variation the following constraint may be required: In each SPS and first profile_tier_level( ) in VPS the value of sub_layer_level_present_flag[0] in profile_tier_level( ) may be equal to 1 only when the value of sub_layer_level_idc[0] is different than the value of general_level_idc. This constraint requires signaling of the level of the sub-layer representation with TemporalId equal to 0 only when that level is different than the level of the overall bitstream]; determining whether the video bitstream contains a second syntax element associated with the second sublayer representation; if the video bitstream contains the second syntax element, deriving a second sublayer level value for the second sublayer representation based on a value decoded from the second syntax element, otherwise deriving the second sublayer level value based on a third sublayer level value derived for the third sublayer representation [Deshpande: Col. 37, ll. 53-67: Additional variations of the constraint are described further as follows: It may be required that the profile_tier_level( ) In each SPS, the value of sub_layer_level_present_flag[0] may be equal to 1 when the value of sub_layer_level_idc[0] is different than the value of general_level_idc. This constraint requires the signaling of the Level of the sub-layer representation with TemporalId equal to 0. Alternatively, it may be required that in each SPS and first profile_tier_level( ) in VPS the value of sub_layer_level_present_flag[0] in profile_tier_level( ) may be equal to 1 when the value of sub_layer_level_idc[0] is different than the value of general_level_idc. This constraint requires the signaling of the Level of the sub-layer representation with TemporalId equal to 0]; after determining whether the[Deshpande: Col. 36, l. 62 - Col. 37, l. 35: (247) In another example it may be required that otherwise all the pictures may have same value of nuh_temporal_id_plus1 (or same value of TemporalID). It may be required that when temporal sub-layering with two temporal sub-layers is applied, the bitstream may comply with the following constraints: The bitstream may contain exactly two sub-layers, with TemporalId equal to 0 and 1, respectively, and the value of sps_max_sub_layers_minus1 of each SPS may be set equal to 1 and value of vps_max_sub_layers_minus1 of each VPS may be set equal to 1. Signaling the vps_max_sub_layers_minus1 value equal to 1 In each VPS allows a receiver entity that the stream will never have more than 2 temporal sub-layers. In this case it does not need to parse each SPS to find out how many maximum number of temporal sub-layers may be present The sub-layer representation with TemporalId equal to 0 may have a constant picture rate (as indicated by the presence of elemental_duration_in_tc_minus1[0]), and the picture rate may be exactly half of that of the entire bitstream (i.e., elemental_duration_in_tc_minus1[0] Is equal to 2*elemental_duration_in_tc_minu1[1]). This constraint allows use of only temporal sub-layer zero while providing constant picture rate which can provide better user experience. The value of sub_layer_profile_present_flag[0] may be equal to 1. This constraint requires the signaling of the profile related fields of the sub-layer representation with Temporalid equal to 0. In profile_tier_level( ) In each SPS, the value of sub_layer_level_present_flag[0] may be equal to 1 only when the value of sublayer_level_idc[0] is different than the value of general_level_idc. This constraint requires signaling of the level of the sub-layer representation with TemporalId equal to 0 only when that level is different than the level of the overall bitstream. The overall bitstream may be the bitstream consisting of temporal sub-layer with TemporalID equal to 0 and temporal sub-layer with TemporalID equal to 1]; and if the video bitstream contains the first syntax element, deriving a first sublayer level value for the first sublayer representation based on a value decoded from the first syntax element, otherwise deriving the first sublayer level value based on the second sublayer level value [Deshpande: Col. 37, ll. 35- 67].
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Deshpande discloses all the limitations of Claims 1 and 10, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Deshpande discloses the video bitstream contains both the second syntax element and the first syntax element, and the second syntax element precedes said first syntax element in the video bitstream [Deshpande: Col. 37: ll. 61-67: Alternatively, it may be required that in each SPS and first profile_tier_level( ) in VPS the value of sub_layer_level_present_flag[0] in profile_tier_level( ) may be equal to 1 when the value of sub_layer_level_idc[0] is different than the value of general_level_idc. This constraint requires the signaling of the Level of the sub-layer representation with TemporalId equal to 0].
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Deshpande discloses all the limitations of Claims 1 and 10, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Deshpande discloses wherein the method further comprises decoding a second flag syntax element from the video bitstream to produce a second decoded flag value, and determining whether the video bitstream contains the second syntax element comprises determining whether the second decoded flag value is equal to a predetermined value [Deshpande: Col. 1, l. 57- Col. 2, l. 11: (i) if said second part is present then said second part is a coded string of a single layer video encoding with a syntax element based upon a sub layer profile space, a sub layer tier flag, a sub layer profile idc, 32 bits of sub layer profile compatibility flags, and each of 6 bytes of constraint flags starting from a sub layer progressive source flag respectively substituted for an element general profile space, a general tier flag, a general profile idc, a general profile compatibility flag in the range of 0 to 31, inclusive, and each of 6 bytes of constraint flags starting from a general progressive source flag, (ii) if said second part is absent then all other profile tier level parameters for said temporal sub-layer zero, besides a sub layer level idc[0] parameter which is signalled in said first part, are inferred to be same as the value of those parameters signalled codecs parameter for the representation, (f) wherein if all representations of an adaptation element contain temporal sub-layering with the same profile tier, level, and flag information for said temporal sub-layer zero then at least one of said first part and said second part may be used for said adaptation element].
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Deshpande discloses all the limitations of Claims 4 and 14, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Deshpande discloses wherein the method further comprises decoding a first flag syntax element from the video bitstream to produce a first decoded flag value, and determining whether the video bitstream contains the first syntax element comprises determining whether the first decoded flag value is equal to the predetermined value [Deshpande: Col. 1, l. 57- Col. 2, l. 11].
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Deshpande discloses all the limitations of Claims 1 and 10, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Deshpande discloses wherein determining the maximum number of ordered sublayer representations comprises determining the maximum number of ordered sublayer representations based on a syntax element included in a Sequence Parameter Set (SPS) included in the video bitstream [Deshpande: Col. 31, ll. 21-26: sps_max_sub_layers_minus1 plus 1 may specify the maximum number of temporal sub-layers that may be present in each CVS referring to the SPS. The value of sps_max_sub_layers_minus1 may be in the range of 0 to 6, inclusive. The value of sps_max_sub_layers_minus1 may be less than or equal to vps_max_sub_layers_minus1].
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Deshpande discloses all the limitations of Claims 1 and 10, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Deshpande discloses wherein determining the maximum number of ordered sublayer representations comprises determining the maximum number of ordered sublayer representations based on a syntax element that specifies a max temporal ID for a profile, tier and level (PTL) syntax structure [Deshpande: Col. 32, ll. 31-43: vps_num_profile_tier_level_minus1 plus 1 specifies the number of profile_tier_level( ) syntax structures in the VPS. The value of vps_num_profile_tier_level_minus1 may be in the range of 0 to 63, inclusive.
profile_level_tier_idx[i] may specifies the index, into the list of profile_tier_level( ) syntax structures in the VPS, of the profile_tier_level( ) syntax structure that applies to i-th output layer set. The length of the profile_level_tier_idx[i] syntax element is Ceil(Log2(vps_num_profile_tier_level_minus1+1)) bits. The value of profile_level_tier_idx[0] may be inferred to be equal to 0. The value of profile_level_tier_idx[i] may be in the range of 0 to vps_num_profile_tier_level_minus1, inclusive].
Regarding Claims 8 and 11, Deshpande discloses all the limitations of Claims 1 and 10, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Deshpande discloses wherein the third sublayer level value is derived based on a syntax element included in a Sequence Parameter Set (SPS) included in the[Deshpande: Col. 31, ll. 21-26].
Regarding Claims 18 and 21, Deshpande discloses all the limitations of Claims 16 and 6, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Deshpande discloses wherein the syntax element is sps_max_sublayers_minus1 [Deshpande: Col. 31, ll. 21-26: sps_max_sublayers_minus1].
Regarding Claims 19 and 22, Deshpande discloses all the limitations of Claims 10 and 1, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Deshpande discloses wherein the method further comprises: decoding the second syntax element from a profile_tier_level() syntax structure contained in the video bitstream if the video bitstream contains the second syntax element, and decoding the first syntax element from the profile_tier_level() syntax structure if the video bitstream contains the first syntax element [Deshpande: Col. 1, l. 57- Col. 2, l. 11].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 12, 20 and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: While syntax elements for temporal sublayer identification and signaling are known, the specific requirements and output have not been found in the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R MESSMORE whose telephone number is (571)272-2773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST/EDT.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/JONATHAN R MESSMORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights