DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 06/10/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Republic of Korea on 06/10/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2024-0075264 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The reference(s) listed on the Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted on 06/08/2026 has/have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449).
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 9, 13-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendry et al., US Patent Application Publication No.: 2019/0253733 A1, hereby Hendry, in view of Kim et al., WO 2023/172509 A1, hereby Kim.
Hendry discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Regarding Claims 1 and 13, Hendry discloses a method for encoding a video using a video encoding apparatus, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Figs. 1 and 3-6), comprising:
“determining whether . . . video content containing a . . . is included in an input video (Figs. 5-6, and [0018] and [0132]-[0147], disclosing signaling, as a part of the syntax structure, information indicated that the coded bitstream includes 360-degree video information or non-360-degree video information; see also [0068] and Table 1; see also [0019]-[0024], disclosing examples highlighting the differences between 360-degree and non-360-degree video; Figs. 1 and 3-4, [0105]-[0106] and [0126]-[0127]);
determining a value of a . . . video syntax indicating whether the . . . video content is included in the input video, based on a result of a determination (Figs. 5-6, and [0018] and [0132]-[0147], disclosing signaling, as a part of the syntax structure, information indicated that the coded bitstream includes 360-degree video information or non-360-degree video information; see also [0068] and Table 1; see also [0019]-[0024], disclosing examples highlighting the differences between 360-degree and non-360-degree video; Figs. 1 and 3-4, [0105]-[0106] and [0126]-[0127]); and
encoding the input video based on the value of the . . . video syntax (Figs. 5-6, and [0018] and [0132]-[0147], disclosing signaling, as a part of the syntax structure, information indicated that the coded bitstream includes 360-degree video information or non-360-degree video information; see also [0068] and Table 1; see also [0019]-[0024], disclosing examples highlighting the differences between 360-degree and non-360-degree video; Figs. 1 and 3-4, [0105]-[0106] and [0126]-[0127]).”
However, although Hendry suggests the claimed patch video content, Kim does expressly disclose the following:
“. . . patch video content containing a patch is included in an input video (Figs. 1, 4-5, 10, and 32, and [00287] (Table) and [00284]-[00288], disclosing atdu_patch_data_present_flag indicates there are patch data (patch information data()) signalled in the tile, in which this syntax is dependent from prior syntax elements (i.e., based on a result of a determination); see also Figs. 33-37);
determining a value of a patch video syntax indicating whether the patch video content is included in the input video, based on a result of a determination (Figs. 1, 4-5, 10, and 32, and [00287] (Table) and [00284]-[00288], disclosing atdu_patch_data_present_flag indicates there are patch data (patch information data()) signalled in the tile, in which this syntax is dependent from prior syntax elements (i.e., based on a result of a determination); see also Figs. 33-37); and
encoding the input video based on the value of the patch video syntax (Figs. 1, 4-5, 10, and 32, and [00287] (Table) and [00284]-[00288], disclosing atdu_patch_data_present_flag indicates there are patch data (patch information data()) signalled in the tile, in which this syntax is dependent from prior syntax elements (i.e., based on a result of a determination); see also Figs. 33-37).”
Accordingly, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hendry and Kim (hereby Hendry-Kim), to modify a method for encoding a video using a video encoding apparatus, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Hendry to use the claimed patch video content as in Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to create the advantage of precisely indicating patch data information, whether skipped, copied, present or new (see Kim, Figs. 1, 4-5, 10, and 32, and [00284]-[00288]; see also Figs. 33-37).
Regarding Claim 9, Hendry-Kim discloses each and every feature of Claims 1 and 13, as outlined above, and further discloses the remaining features of a method for decoding a video using a video decoding apparatus (Hendry, Figs. 1 and 3-6), comprising:
“receiving encoded video data as input (Hendry, Figs. 5-6, and [0018] and [0132]-[0147], disclosing signaling, as a part of the syntax structure, information indicated that the coded bitstream includes 360-degree video information or non-360-degree video information; see also [0068] and Table 1; see also [0019]-[0024], disclosing examples highlighting the differences between 360-degree and non-360-degree video; Figs. 1 and 3-4, [0105]-[0106] and [0126]-[0127]);
parsing the encoded video data to determine a value of (Hendry, Figs. 5-6, and [0018] and [0132]-[0147], disclosing signaling, as a part of the syntax structure, information indicated that the coded bitstream includes 360-degree video information or non-360-degree video information; see also [0068] and Table 1; see also [0019]-[0024], disclosing examples highlighting the differences between 360-degree and non-360-degree video; Figs. 1 and 3-4, [0105]-[0106] and [0126]-[0127]) a patch video syntax indicating whether patch video content containing a patch is included (Kim, Figs. 1, 4-5, 10, and 32, and [00287] (Table) and [00284]-[00288], disclosing atdu_patch_data_present_flag indicates there are patch data (patch information data()) signalled in the tile, in which this syntax is dependent from prior syntax elements (i.e., based on a result of a determination); see also Figs. 33-37) in an input video corresponding to the encoded video data (Hendry, Figs. 5-6, and [0018] and [0132]-[0147], disclosing signaling, as a part of the syntax structure, information indicated that the coded bitstream includes 360-degree video information or non-360-degree video information; see also [0068] and Table 1; see also [0019]-[0024], disclosing examples highlighting the differences between 360-degree and non-360-degree video; Figs. 1 and 3-4, [0105]-[0106] and [0126]-[0127]); and
decoding the encoded video data based on the encoded video data and the value of (Hendry, Figs. 5-6, and [0018] and [0132]-[0147], disclosing signaling, as a part of the syntax structure, information indicated that the coded bitstream includes 360-degree video information or non-360-degree video information; see also [0068] and Table 1; see also [0019]-[0024], disclosing examples highlighting the differences between 360-degree and non-360-degree video; Figs. 1 and 3-4, [0105]-[0106] and [0126]-[0127]) the patch video syntax (Kim, Figs. 1, 4-5, 10, and 32, and [00287] (Table) and [00284]-[00288], disclosing atdu_patch_data_present_flag indicates there are patch data (patch information data()) signalled in the tile, in which this syntax is dependent from prior syntax elements (i.e., based on a result of a determination); see also Figs. 33-37).”
The motivation that was utilized in Claims 1 and 13 applies equally as well here.
Regarding Claims 2 and 14, Hendry-Kim discloses:
“wherein the encoding the input video includes: encoding the value of (Hendry, Figs. 5-6, and [0018] and [0132]-[0147], disclosing signaling, as a part of the syntax structure, information indicated that the coded bitstream includes 360-degree video information or non-360-degree video information; see also [0068] and Table 1; see also [0019]-[0024], disclosing examples highlighting the differences between 360-degree and non-360-degree video; Figs. 1 and 3-4, [0105]-[0106] and [0126]-[0127]) the patch video syntax (Kim, Figs. 1, 4-5, 10, and 32, and [00287] (Table) and [00284]-[00288], disclosing atdu_patch_data_present_flag indicates there are patch data (patch information data()) signalled in the tile, in which this syntax is dependent from prior syntax elements (i.e., based on a result of a determination); see also Figs. 33-37).”
The motivation that was utilized in Claims 1, 9, and 13 applies equally as well here.
Regarding Claims 5 and 17, Hendry-Kim discloses:
“wherein in the determining whether (Hendry, Figs. 5-6, and [0018] and [0132]-[0147], disclosing signaling, as a part of the syntax structure, information indicated that the coded bitstream includes 360-degree video information or non-360-degree video information; see also [0068] and Table 1; see also [0019]-[0024], disclosing examples highlighting the differences between 360-degree and non-360-degree video; Figs. 1 and 3-4, [0105]-[0106] and [0126]-[0127]) the patch video content (Kim, Figs. 1, 4-5, 10, and 32, and [00287] (Table) and [00284]-[00288], disclosing atdu_patch_data_present_flag indicates there are patch data (patch information data()) signalled in the tile, in which this syntax is dependent from prior syntax elements (i.e., based on a result of a determination); see also Figs. 33-37) is included, source information of the input video is identified to determine whether (Hendry, Figs. 5-6, and [0018] and [0132]-[0147], disclosing signaling, as a part of the syntax structure, information indicated that the coded bitstream includes 360-degree video information or non-360-degree video information; see also [0068] and Table 1; see also [0019]-[0024], disclosing examples highlighting the differences between 360-degree and non-360-degree video; Figs. 1 and 3-4, [0105]-[0106] and [0126]-[0127]) the patch video content (Kim, Figs. 1, 4-5, 10, and 32, and [00287] (Table) and [00284]-[00288], disclosing atdu_patch_data_present_flag indicates there are patch data (patch information data()) signalled in the tile, in which this syntax is dependent from prior syntax elements (i.e., based on a result of a determination); see also Figs. 33-37) is included in the input video (Hendry, Figs. 5-6, and [0018] and [0132]-[0147], disclosing signaling, as a part of the syntax structure, information indicated that the coded bitstream includes 360-degree video information or non-360-degree video information; see also [0068] and Table 1; see also [0019]-[0024], disclosing examples highlighting the differences between 360-degree and non-360-degree video; Figs. 1 and 3-4, [0105]-[0106] and [0126]-[0127]).”
The motivation that was utilized in Claims 1, 9, and 13 applies equally as well here.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 3-4, 10, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendry-Kim, and in further view of Shih et al., US Patent Application Publication No.: 2018/0192074 A1, hereby Shih.
Regarding Claims 3 and 15, Hendry-Kim discloses:
“determining a . . . of a DBF (deblocking filter) . . . indicating . . . to apply a DBF, . . . the value of (Hendry, [0099] and [0124], disclosing performing deblocking operations; Figs. 5-6, and [0018] and [0132]-[0147], disclosing signaling, as a part of the syntax structure, information indicated that the coded bitstream includes 360-degree video information or non-360-degree video information; see also [0068] and Table 1; see also [0019]-[0024], disclosing examples highlighting the differences between 360-degree and non-360-degree video; Figs. 1 and 3-4, [0105]-[0106] and [0126]-[0127]) the patch video syntax (Kim, Figs. 1, 4-5, 10, and 32, and [00287] (Table) and [00284]-[00288], disclosing atdu_patch_data_present_flag indicates there are patch data (patch information data()) signalled in the tile, in which this syntax is dependent from prior syntax elements (i.e., based on a result of a determination); see also Figs. 33-37), and encoding the (Hendry, [0099] and [0124], disclosing performing deblocking operations; Figs. 5-6, and [0018] and [0132]-[0147], disclosing signaling, as a part of the syntax structure, information indicated that the coded bitstream includes 360-degree video information or non-360-degree video information; see also [0068] and Table 1; see also [0019]-[0024], disclosing examples highlighting the differences between 360-degree and non-360-degree video; Figs. 1 and 3-4, [0105]-[0106] and [0126]-[0127]). . . .”
The motivation that was utilized in Claims 1, 9, and 13 applies equally as well here.
However, although Hendry suggests the claimed DBF syntax, Shih does expressly disclose the following:
“determining a value of a DBF (deblocking filter) syntax indicating whether to apply a DBF, based on the value of the . . . video syntax, and encoding the value of the DBF syntax (Figs. 1-3 and 11, and [0030], [0032], [0042], [0044], and [0061]-[0062], disclosing applying or not applying de-blocking filter based on whether boundaries are continuous or discontinuous, with associated syntax/flags).”
Accordingly, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hendry-Kim and Shih (hereby Hendry-Kim-Shih), to modify a method for encoding a video using a video encoding apparatus, a method for decoding a video using a video decoding apparatus, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Hendry-Kim to use the claimed DBF syntax as in Shih. The motivation for doing so would have been to create the advantage of allowing the image quality of the reconstructed image to not be degraded (see Shih, Figs. 1-3 and 11, and [0030], [0032], [0042], [0044], and [0061]-[0062]).
Regarding Claims 4 and 16, Hendry-Kim-Shih discloses:
“wherein the patch video content includes a plurality of patches (Kim, Figs. 1, 4-5, 10, and 32, and [00287] (Table) and [00284]-[00288], disclosing atdu_patch_data_present_flag indicates there are patch data (patch information data()) signalled in the tile, in which this syntax is dependent from prior syntax elements (i.e., based on a result of a determination); see also Figs. 33-37), and wherein the method comprises: applying the DBF to block boundaries within the input video or not applying the DBF to block boundaries (Shih, Figs. 1-3 and 11, and [0030], [0032], [0042], [0044], and [0061]-[0062], disclosing applying or not applying de-blocking filter based on whether boundaries are continuous or discontinuous, with associated syntax/flags) that correspond to patch boundaries (Kim, Figs. 1, 4-5, 10, and 32, and [00287] (Table) and [00284]-[00288], disclosing atdu_patch_data_present_flag indicates there are patch data (patch information data()) signalled in the tile, in which this syntax is dependent from prior syntax elements (i.e., based on a result of a determination); see also Figs. 33-37), based on the value of the DBF syntax (Shih, Figs. 1-3 and 11, and [0030], [0032], [0042], [0044], and [0061]-[0062], disclosing applying or not applying de-blocking filter based on whether boundaries are continuous or discontinuous, with associated syntax/flags), with respect to the input video (Hendry, [0099] and [0124], disclosing performing deblocking operations; Figs. 5-6, and [0018] and [0132]-[0147], disclosing signaling, as a part of the syntax structure, information indicated that the coded bitstream includes 360-degree video information or non-360-degree video information; see also [0068] and Table 1; see also [0019]-[0024], disclosing examples highlighting the differences between 360-degree and non-360-degree video; Figs. 1 and 3-4, [0105]-[0106] and [0126]-[0127]).”
The motivation that was utilized in Claims 3 and 15 applies equally as well here.
Regarding Claim 10, Hendry-Kim-Shih discloses:
“wherein, when it is determined that the patch video content (Kim, Figs. 1, 4-5, 10, and 32, and [00287] (Table) and [00284]-[00288], disclosing atdu_patch_data_present_flag indicates there are patch data (patch information data()) signalled in the tile, in which this syntax is dependent from prior syntax elements (i.e., based on a result of a determination); see also Figs. 33-37) is included in the input video, the decoding the encoded video data includes: decoding the encoded video data based on at least one (Hendry, [0099] and [0124], disclosing performing deblocking operations; Figs. 5-6, and [0018] and [0132]-[0147], disclosing signaling, as a part of the syntax structure, information indicated that the coded bitstream includes 360-degree video information or non-360-degree video information; see also [0068] and Table 1; see also [0019]-[0024], disclosing examples highlighting the differences between 360-degree and non-360-degree video; Figs. 1 and 3-4, [0105]-[0106] and [0126]-[0127]) of: removing an extended area of the patch; or not applying a deblocking filter (DBF) to block boundaries (Shih, Figs. 1-3 and 11, and [0030], [0032], [0042], [0044], and [0061]-[0062], disclosing applying or not applying de-blocking filter based on whether boundaries are continuous or discontinuous, with associated syntax/flags) that correspond to patch (Kim, Figs. 1, 4-5, 10, and 32, and [00287] (Table) and [00284]-[00288], disclosing atdu_patch_data_present_flag indicates there are patch data (patch information data()) signalled in the tile, in which this syntax is dependent from prior syntax elements (i.e., based on a result of a determination); see also Figs. 33-37) boundaries (Shih, Figs. 1-3 and 11, and [0030], [0032], [0042], [0044], and [0061]-[0062], disclosing applying or not applying de-blocking filter based on whether boundaries are continuous or discontinuous, with associated syntax/flags).”
The motivation that was utilized in Claims 3 and 15 applies equally as well here.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 6-8, 11-12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendry-Kim, and in further view of Lim et al., US Patent Application Publication No.: 2020/0260082 A1, hereby Lim.
Regarding Claims 6 and 18, Hendry-Kim discloses:
“. . . the patch when it is determined that the patch video content (Kim, Figs. 1, 4-5, 10, and 32, and [00287] (Table) and [00284]-[00288], disclosing atdu_patch_data_present_flag indicates there are patch data (patch information data()) signalled in the tile, in which this syntax is dependent from prior syntax elements (i.e., based on a result of a determination); see also Figs. 33-37) is included in the input video (Hendry, [0099] and [0124], disclosing performing deblocking operations; Figs. 5-6, and [0018] and [0132]-[0147], disclosing signaling, as a part of the syntax structure, information indicated that the coded bitstream includes 360-degree video information or non-360-degree video information; see also [0068] and Table 1; see also [0019]-[0024], disclosing examples highlighting the differences between 360-degree and non-360-degree video; Figs. 1 and 3-4, [0105]-[0106] and [0126]-[0127]).”
The motivation that was utilized in Claims 1, 9, and 13 applies equally as well here.
However, although Hendry suggests the claimed extended area, Lim does expressly disclose the following:
“extending an area corresponding to the . . . video content is included in the input video (Figs. 1-3, and [0110]-[0111], disclosing padding by extension; see also Figs. 6-7, and [0077]-[0082]).”
Accordingly, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hendry-Kim and Lim (hereby Hendry-Kim-Lim), to modify a method for encoding a video using a video encoding apparatus, a method for decoding a video using a video decoding apparatus, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Hendry-Kim to use the claimed extended area as in Lim. The motivation for doing so would have been to create the advantage of providing flexibility and precise signaling for different encoding/decoding apparatuses having different settings (see Lim, Figs. 1-3, and [0110]-[0111], disclosing padding by extension; see also Figs. 6-7, and [0077]-[0082]).
Regarding Claims 7-8 and 19-20, Hendry-Kim-Lim discloses:
“wherein in the extending the area, the area corresponding to (Lim, Figs. 1-3, and [0110]-[0111], disclosing padding by extension; see also Figs. 6-7, and [0077]-[0082]) the patch (Kim, Figs. 1, 4-5, 10, and 32, and [00287] (Table) and [00284]-[00288], disclosing atdu_patch_data_present_flag indicates there are patch data (patch information data()) signalled in the tile, in which this syntax is dependent from prior syntax elements (i.e., based on a result of a determination); see also Figs. 33-37) is extended by a predetermined ratio with respect to the area corresponding to (Lim, Figs. 1-3, and [0110]-[0111], disclosing padding by extension; see also Figs. 6-7, and [0077]-[0082]) the patch (Kim, Figs. 1, 4-5, 10, and 32, and [00287] (Table) and [00284]-[00288], disclosing atdu_patch_data_present_flag indicates there are patch data (patch information data()) signalled in the tile, in which this syntax is dependent from prior syntax elements (i.e., based on a result of a determination); see also Figs. 33-37), for each of top, bottom, left, and right directions of the area corresponding to (Lim, Figs. 1-3, and [0110]-[0111], disclosing padding by extension; see also Figs. 6-7, and [0077]-[0082]) the patch (Kim, Figs. 1, 4-5, 10, and 32, and [00287] (Table) and [00284]-[00288], disclosing atdu_patch_data_present_flag indicates there are patch data (patch information data()) signalled in the tile, in which this syntax is dependent from prior syntax elements (i.e., based on a result of a determination); see also Figs. 33-37).”
The motivation that was utilized in Claims 6 and 18 applies equally as well here.
Regarding Claim 11, Hendry-Kim-Lim discloses:
“playing back the decoded video data, wherein, when it is determined that the (Lim, Figs. 15-17, and [0113] and [0128], disclosing removing padding based on syntax and sending to the renderer; Figs. 1-3, and [0110]-[0111], disclosing padding by extension; see also Figs. 6-7, and [0077]-[0082]) patch video content (Kim, Figs. 1, 4-5, 10, and 32, and [00287] (Table) and [00284]-[00288], disclosing atdu_patch_data_present_flag indicates there are patch data (patch information data()) signalled in the tile, in which this syntax is dependent from prior syntax elements (i.e., based on a result of a determination); see also Figs. 33-37) is included in the input video (Hendry, [0099] and [0124], disclosing performing deblocking operations; Figs. 5-6, and [0018] and [0132]-[0147], disclosing signaling, as a part of the syntax structure, information indicated that the coded bitstream includes 360-degree video information or non-360-degree video information; see also [0068] and Table 1; see also [0019]-[0024], disclosing examples highlighting the differences between 360-degree and non-360-degree video; Figs. 1 and 3-4, [0105]-[0106] and [0126]-[0127]), the playing back the decoded video data includes playing back only a partial area of an area corresponding to the (Lim, Figs. 15-17, and [0113] and [0128], disclosing removing padding based on syntax and sending to the renderer; see also Figs. 1-3, and [0110]-[0111], disclosing padding by extension; see also Figs. 6-7, and [0077]-[0082]) the patch (Kim, Figs. 1, 4-5, 10, and 32, and [00287] (Table) and [00284]-[00288], disclosing atdu_patch_data_present_flag indicates there are patch data (patch information data()) signalled in the tile, in which this syntax is dependent from prior syntax elements (i.e., based on a result of a determination); see also Figs. 33-37).”
Accordingly, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hendry-Kim-Lim, to modify a method for encoding a video using a video encoding apparatus, a method for decoding a video using a video decoding apparatus, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Hendry-Kim to use playing back a partial area as in Lim. The motivation for doing so would have been to create the advantage of precisely outputting the desired video, such as a decoded 2D image straight to the renderer or first removing specified padding region from the decoded 2D image, then outputting to the renderer (see Lim, Figs. 15-17, and [0113] and [0128]; see also Figs. 1-3, and [0110]-[0111], disclosing padding by extension; see also Figs. 6-7, and [0077]-[0082]).
Regarding Claim 12, Hendry-Kim-Lim discloses:
“parsing the encoded video data to determine a value of (Hendry, [0099] and [0124], disclosing performing deblocking operations; Figs. 5-6, and [0018] and [0132]-[0147], disclosing signaling, as a part of the syntax structure, information indicated that the coded bitstream includes 360-degree video information or non-360-degree video information; see also [0068] and Table 1; see also [0019]-[0024], disclosing examples highlighting the differences between 360-degree and non-360-degree video; Figs. 1 and 3-4, [0105]-[0106] and [0126]-[0127]) an extension syntax indicating whether an area corresponding to (Lim, Figs. 15-17, and [0113] and [0128], disclosing removing padding based on syntax and sending to the renderer; see also Figs. 1-3, and [0110]-[0111], disclosing padding by extension; see also Figs. 6-7, and [0077]-[0082]) a patch included (Kim, Figs. 1, 4-5, 10, and 32, and [00287] (Table) and [00284]-[00288], disclosing atdu_patch_data_present_flag indicates there are patch data (patch information data()) signalled in the tile, in which this syntax is dependent from prior syntax elements (i.e., based on a result of a determination); see also Figs. 33-37) in the input video corresponding to the encoded video data (Hendry, [0099] and [0124], disclosing performing deblocking operations; Figs. 5-6, and [0018] and [0132]-[0147], disclosing signaling, as a part of the syntax structure, information indicated that the coded bitstream includes 360-degree video information or non-360-degree video information; see also [0068] and Table 1; see also [0019]-[0024], disclosing examples highlighting the differences between 360-degree and non-360-degree video; Figs. 1 and 3-4, [0105]-[0106] and [0126]-[0127]) is extended (Lim, Figs. 15-17, and [0113] and [0128], disclosing removing padding based on syntax and sending to the renderer; see also Figs. 1-3, and [0110]-[0111], disclosing padding by extension; see also Figs. 6-7, and [0077]-[0082]), wherein, in the decoding the encoded video data (Hendry, [0099] and [0124], disclosing performing deblocking operations; Figs. 5-6, and [0018] and [0132]-[0147], disclosing signaling, as a part of the syntax structure, information indicated that the coded bitstream includes 360-degree video information or non-360-degree video information; see also [0068] and Table 1; see also [0019]-[0024], disclosing examples highlighting the differences between 360-degree and non-360-degree video; Figs. 1 and 3-4, [0105]-[0106] and [0126]-[0127]), a determination of whether to remove the extended area is made based on the value of the extension syntax (Lim, Figs. 15-17, and [0113] and [0128], disclosing removing padding based on syntax and sending to the renderer; see also Figs. 1-3, and [0110]-[0111], disclosing padding by extension; see also Figs. 6-7, and [0077]-[0082]).”
The motivation that was utilized in Claim 11 applies equally as well here.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Examiner notes that multiple references cited disclose point cloud compression, including patch data. For example, the following references show similar features in the claims, although not relied upon: Kim (US 20190005709 A1), Figs. 1-3, [0046]-[0047], and [0095]-[0096]; Su (US 20240171775 A1), Figs. 1-2 and 3D, [0051]-[0052], [0102]-[0103], [0215], [0226]-[0227], and [0229].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN M WALSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, 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.
/KATHLEEN M WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights