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 1-5, 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-7, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,363,517, hereafter “‘517 patent”, in view of Thomas, US 2018/0295400 A1.
Claims 10-14, 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, and 3-7, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,363,517, hereafter “‘517 patent”, in view of Thomas, US 2018/0295400 A1.
19/242,655, Instant Claim 1
US 12,363,317 Claim 1
A method of video media bitstream generation, the method comprising:
generating a video bitstream, including:
receiving video information corresponding to a plurality of subpictures within a picture, the video information including at least one output layer set corresponding to one or more output layers and a plurality of flags, wherein the output layer set includes one or more subpictures from a base layer and one or more subpictures from an enhancement layer;
identifying a first subpicture from among the plurality of subpictures as a region of interest according to the output layer set;
encoding the first subpicture corresponding to the region of interest in a high
quality mode for the enhancement layer of the one or more output layers;
encoding remaining subpictures in a low quality mode for the base layer of the one or more output layers; and
A method of decoding a video sequence comprising:
receiving video information corresponding to a plurality of subpictures within a picture, the video information including at least one output layer set corresponding to one or more output layers and a plurality of flags, wherein the output layer set includes one or more encoded subpictures from a base layer and one or more encoded subpictures from an enhancement layer;
identifying a first subpicture from among the plurality of subpictures as a region of interest according to the output layer set;
decoding the first subpicture corresponding to the region of interest in a high quality mode from the enhancement layer of the one or more output layers; and
decoding remaining subpictures in a low quality mode from the base layer of the one or more output layers.
transmitting the video bitstream including the encoded first subpicture and the encoded remaining subpictures.
The instant independent claims recite the further limitation of “transmitting the video bitstream including the encoded first subpicture and the encoded remaining subpictures.”, not found in the ‘517 patent claims. However, this feature is disclosed in Thomas. See, for instance, [0096], “A network node receiving a request for transmission of an enhancement tile stream from the client device may transmit the media data as a tile stream, preferably an HEVC-based tile stream, to the client device.” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate a transmission step into the invention claimed in the ‘517 patent claims. Video transmission is an explicit purpose for video compression, and for forming scalable video coding bitstreams of the type claimed in claim 1 of the ‘517 patent. Incorporating a transmission step such as disclosed in the Thomas reference would have merely entailed combining known prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143.01.A.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the combination of the ‘517 claims in view of Thomas does not disclose: “The method of claim 5, wherein the second flag is a video parameter set subpictures present flag.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8, in further view of Hannuksela, US 2022/0239949 A1.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, while the ‘517 claims do not recite, “the method of claim 1, wherein the video bitstream further includes a video parameter set that includes the at least one output layer set.”, Hannuksela discloses in an in analogous art that an output layer set may specified in a VPS.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate output layer sets, specified in a video parameter set, in the subpicture decoding of the ‘517 claims, in order to organize multilayer coding with subpictures. As was understood in the art, a video parameter set (VPS) is a high-level syntax specifying parameters for an entire video bitstream; placing output layer information here would merely involved combining the prior art elements respectively disclosed in the ‘517 claims and in Hannuksela, without changing their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results for one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. See 2143.1.A. 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Thomas discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein encoding the first subpicture comprises enlarging the first subpicture in the high-quality mode (See [0122].).
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.
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thomas, US 2018/0295400 A1.
Computer-readable recording medium claim *** is directed to non-functional descriptive matter. A computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream does not perform any functions, and any prior art disclosing a computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream reads on such a claim
Non-transitory computer-readable medium claims 10-18 are directed to a product (“. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a video bitstream”) that is generated by a process “a video encoding method”. This product-by-process claims cover any digital video bitstream “reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than the product claimed”, and as such is anticipated by the video bitstream disclosed in Thomas, which discloses a video bitstream. See MPEP 2113.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowable over the prior art.
Regarding claims 1, the prior art does not disclose, “wherein the output layer set includes one or more encoded subpictures from the base layer and one or more encoded subpictures from the enhancement layer.”
At best, the closest prior art, Thomas, US 2018/0295400 A1, discloses encoding multiple subpictures in a single layer, and encoding certain of said subpictures as one or more regions of interest at an enhanced resolution, as disclosed in [0096]-[0097]. However, Thomas nowhere discloses or makes obvious that an output layer set includes one or more encoded subpictures from a base layer as well as one or more enhancement layer subpictures.
‘
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE M LOTFI whose telephone number is (571)272-8762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/KYLE M LOTFI/Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights