Mixed NAL Unit Type Picture Constraints

DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 08/10/2026 and is submitted as a Non-Final for the reasons given below. In the filed response, independent Claims 1, 8, and 14 have been amended. Further, Claims 3, 10, and 16 have been cancelled. Accordingly, Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-20 have been examined and are pending. Terminal Disclaimer 1. The terminal disclaimer filed on 08/10/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent Numbers 12,363,324 and 12,192,490 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded. Response to Arguments 2. Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 8-9, filed 08/10/2026, with respect to the nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of U.S. Patent numbers 12,363,324 and 12,192,490 have been fully considered and are persuasive. With the filing of the terminal disclaimer (above), the rejections of Claims 1-20 have been withdrawn. Regarding Application No. 18/960,730, which has since been patented (now US patent no. 12,744,919), the examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1, 8, and 14 which include the features of now cancelled claims 3, 10, and 16. However, after careful consideration, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection over the claims of the now patented application, hereinafter referred to as 919, can be maintained since claim 3 (and 9 and 17) of 919 also contains the amended features, i.e. "The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 2, wherein the mixed_nalu_types_in_pic_flag is equal to one when specifying that each picture referring to the PPS has more than one VCL NAL unit and the VCL NAL units do not have the same value of NAL unit type (nal_unit_type), and wherein mixed_nalu_types_in_pic_flag is equal to zero when specifying that each picture referring to the PPS has one or more VCL NAL units and the VCL NAL units have the same value of nal_unit_type." The examiner therefore respectfully submits that although instant claim 1 pertains to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, all of its features in relation to a plurality of sub-pictures of a picture can be found in claims 7-12 of 919. Thus, instant claim 1 remains rejected. The same also applies to instant claims 8 and 14 which recite similar limitations. Since the non-statutory double patenting rejection now includes claims 2, 5-7, 9, 12-13, 15, and 18-20, this office action is submitted as a Non-Final. Please see below for details. 3. Applicant’s response (pgs. 10-11 of remarks) regarding the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is acknowledged. The rejection is therefore withdrawn. 4. The Examiner is available to discuss the matters of this office action to help move the Instant Application forward. Please refer to the conclusion to this office action regarding scheduling interviews. 5. Accordingly, Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-20 have been examined and are pending. Claim Objections 6. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “wherein mixed_nalu_types_in_pic_flag is set to one to indicate the picture contains exactly two NAL unit types.”, however, since this flag was introduced in claim 1, on which it depends, it is believed this should read “wherein the mixed_nalu_types_in_pic_flag…” (emphasis added). Please check and update accordingly. Appropriate correction is required. 7. Claims 11 and 17 both recite similar limitation as claim 4 above. Thus, they are also objected to for the same reason presented. Double Patenting 8. 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. 9. Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-15, 18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,744,919 B2 (Application No. 18/960,730), hereinafter referred to as 919. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of 919 anticipate the instant claims of this application, where both are directed to mixed NAL unit type picture constraints. Please refer to table below for reference. 10. Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, and 13 of 919 in view of Deshpande US 2019/0342581 A1, hereinafter referred to as Deshpande. Given Deshpande’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding techniques of 919 for pictures having mixed NAL unit types to include the teachings of Deshpande for employing NAL units with type PPS_NUT to facilitate signaling motion-constrained tile sets for coding video data (e.g. ¶0014). See obviousness rationale below. Table **Note: The items below that are BOLD/UNDERLINED in the Instant Application/Patented claims, respectively, indicate differences in the claim limitation. Instant Application 19/256,876 US Patent No. 12,744,919 B2 (18/960,730) Claim 1 A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a video processing apparatus to: receiving a bitstream comprising a picture partitioned into a plurality of sub-pictures, wherein the sub-pictures are contained in a plurality of video coding layer (VCL) network abstraction layer (NAL) units, wherein the bitstream includes a picture parameter set (PPS) containing a mixed_nalu_types_in_pic_flag specifying whether the VCL NAL units of the picture have different NAL unit types, and wherein when the mixed_nalu_types_in_pic_flag is equal to one, a constraint requires that when a VCL NAL unit of the picture has a NAL unit type (nal_unit_type) equal to instantaneous decoding refresh (IDR) with random access decodable leading picture (IDR_W_RADL), IDR with no leading pictures (IDR_N_LP), or clean random access (CRA) NAL unit type (CRA_NUT), other VCL NAL units of the picture shall have a trailing picture NAL unit type (TRAIL_NUT) nal_unit_type; determining the VCL NAL units of one or more of the sub-pictures of the picture all have a first value of NAL unit type and other VCL NAL units of the picture all have a second value of NAL unit type; and decoding one or more of the sub-pictures based on the first value of NAL unit type or the second value of NAL unit type, wherein the mixed_nalu_types_in_pic_flag is equal to one when specifying that each picture referring to the PPS has more than one VCL NAL unit and the VCL NAL units do not have the same value of NAL unit type (nal unit type), and wherein the mixed nalu_types_ in_pic_flag is equal to zero when specifying that each picture referring to the PPS has one or more VCL NAL units and the VCL NAL units of each picture referring to the PPS have the same value of nal_unit_type. [See for e.g. claim 9 of 919] Claim 7 An encoder comprising: one or more processors configured to: determine whether a picture contains a plurality of sub-pictures of different types; encode the sub-pictures of the picture into a plurality of video coding layer (VCL) network abstraction layer (NAL) units in a bitstream; and encode into the bitstream a flag set to a first value when a first NAL unit type value is the same for all VCL NAL units associated with the picture and set to a second value when the first NAL unit type value for VCL NAL units containing one or more of the sub-pictures of the picture is different than a second NAL unit type value for VCL NAL units containing one or more of the sub-pictures of the picture, wherein the flag is a mixed NAL unit types in picture flag (mixed_nalu_types_in_pic_flag). Claim 8 The encoder of claim 7, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to encode a picture parameter set (PPS) into the bitstream, wherein the flag is encoded into the PPS. Claim 9 The encoder of claim 8, wherein the mixed_nalu_types_in_pic_flag is equal to one when specifying that the picture referring to the PPS has more than one of the VCL NAL units and the VCL NAL units do not have the same value of NAL unit type (nal_unit_type), and wherein mixed_nalu_types_in_pic_flag is equal to zero when specifying the picture referring to the PPS has one or more of the VCL NAL units and the VCL NAL units have the same value of nal_unit_type. Claim 10 The encoder of claim 7, wherein the first NAL unit type value indicates the picture contains an intra-random access point (IRAP) sub-picture, and wherein the second NAL unit type value indicates the picture contains a non-IRAP sub-picture. Claim 11 The encoder of claim 7, wherein the first NAL unit type value is equal to Instantaneous Decoding Refresh (IDR) with random access decodable leading picture (IDR_W_RADL), IDR with no leading pictures (IDR_N_LP), or clean random access (CRA) NAL unit type (CRA_NUT). Claim 12 The encoder of claim 7, wherein the second NAL unit type value is equal to trailing picture NAL unit type (TRAIL_NUT), random access decodable leading picture NAL unit type (RADL_NUT), or random access skipped leading picture (RASL) NAL unit type (RASL_NUT). Claim 2 The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the first value of NAL unit type indicates the picture contains a single type of intra-random access point (IRAP) sub-picture, and wherein the second value of NAL unit type indicates the picture contains a single type of non-IRAP sub-picture. See claim 10 of 919 above Claim 4 The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1,wherein mixed_nalu_types_in_pic_flag is set to one to indicate the picture contains exactly two NAL unit types. Although claim 10 of 919 recites having two NAL unit types (i.e. IRAP and non-IRAP subpictures), there does not appear to be any clear reference that this indication is a result of the mixed_nalu_types_in_pic_flag being set to one. Claim 5 The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1,wherein the picture is denoted as current picture (CurrPic) Not in 919, however, this is deemed within the level of skill in the art Claim 6 The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1,wherein the PPS is included in a PPS NAL unit type (PPS_NUT) Not in 919 Please refer to Deshpande US 2019/0342581 A1 for support. Claim 7 The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1,wherein the PPS contains parameters that apply to an entire picture Not in 919, however, this is deemed within the level of skill in the art Claim 8 An encoder comprising: one or more processors configured to: determine a picture contains a plurality of sub-pictures of different types; encode the sub-pictures of the picture into a plurality of video coding layer (VCL) network abstraction layer (NAL) units in a bitstream; encode a picture parameter set (PPS) into the bitstream; and encode into the PPS a mixed_nalu_types_in_pic_flag specifying whether VCL NAL units of one or more of the sub-pictures of the picture all have a first particular value of NAL unit type and other VCL NAL units in the picture all have a second particular value of NAL unit type, wherein when the mixed_nalu_types_in_pic_flag is equal to one, a constraint requires that when a VCL NAL unit of the picture has a NAL unit type (nal_unit_type) equal to instantaneous decoding refresh (IDR) with random access decodable leading picture (IDR_W_RADL), IDR with no leading pictures (IDR_N_LP), or clean random access (CRA) NAL unit type (CRA_NUT), other VCL NAL units of the picture shall have a trailing picture NAL unit type (TRAIL_NUT) nal_unit_type; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to store the bitstream for communication toward a decoder [Having a memory as claimed for storing and subsequently transmitting data is within the level of skill in the art], wherein the mixed_nalu_types_in_pic_flag is equal to one when specifying that each picture referring to the PPS has more than one VCL NAL unit and the VCL NAL units do not have the same value of NAL unit type (nal unit type), and wherein the mixed_nalu_types_in_pic_flag is equal to zero when specifying that each picture referring to the PPS has one or more VCL NAL units and the VCL NAL units of each picture referring to the PPS have the same value of nal unit type. [See for e.g. claim 9 of 919] See claims 7-12 of 919 above Claim 9 Similar to instant claim 2 above See claim 10 of 919 above Claim 11 Similar to instant claim 4 above Although claim 10 of 919 recites having two NAL unit types (i.e. IRAP and non-IRAP subpictures), there does not appear to be any clear reference that this indication is a result of the mixed_nalu_types_in_pic_flag being set to one. Claim 12 Similar to instant claim 5 above Not in 919, however, this is deemed within the level of skill in the art Claim 13 Similar to instant claim 6 above Not in 919 Please refer to Deshpande US 2019/0342581 A1 for support. Claim 14 A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing an encoded bitstream and one or more instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a decoding device to generate a video based on the bitstream, the bitstream comprising: a picture partitioned into a plurality of sub-pictures, wherein the sub-pictures are contained in a plurality of video coding layer (VCL) network abstraction layer (NAL) units, wherein the bitstream includes a picture parameter set (PPS) containing a mixed_nalu_types_in_pic_flag specifying whether the VCL NAL units of the picture have different NAL unit types, wherein when the mixed_nalu_types_in_pic_flag is equal to one, a constraint requires that when a VCL NAL unit of the picture has a NAL unit type (nal_unit_type) equal to instantaneous decoding refresh (IDR) with random access decodable leading picture (IDR_W_RADL), IDR with no leading pictures (IDR_N_LP), or clean random access (CRA) NAL unit type (CRA_NUT), other VCL NAL units of the picture shall have a trailing picture NAL unit type (TRAIL_NUT) nal_unit_type, wherein the VCL NAL units of one or more of the sub-pictures of the picture all have a first value of NAL unit type and other VCL NAL units of the picture all have a second value of NAL unit type, and wherein one or more of the sub-pictures are decoded based on the first value of NAL unit type or the second value of NAL unit type. [See for e.g. claim 9 of 919] See claims 7-12 of 919 above Claim 15 Similar to instant claim 2 above See claim 10 of 919 above Claim 17 Similar to instant claim 4 above Although claim 10 of 919 recites having two NAL unit types (i.e. IRAP and non-IRAP subpictures), there does not appear to be any clear reference that this indication is a result of the mixed_nalu_types_in_pic_flag being set to one. Claim 18 Similar to instant claim 5 above Not in 919, however, this is deemed within the level of skill in the art Claim 19 Similar to instant claim 6 above Not in 919 Please refer to Deshpande US 2019/0342581 A1 for support. Claim 20 Similar to instant claim 7 above Not in 919, however, this is deemed within the level of skill in the art Obviousness rationale: As to claims 6, 13, and 19, 919 does not explicitly refer to “the PPS is included in a PPS NAL unit type (PPS_NUT)”. Deshpande, however, does refer to this feature (e.g. ¶0097 and ¶0143). Thus given Deshpande’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding techniques of 919 for pictures having mixed NAL unit types to include the teachings of Deshpande, as above, for employing NAL units with type PPS_NUT to facilitate signaling motion-constrained tile sets for coding video data in virtual reality applications (e.g. ¶0014 and ¶0018). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 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, Jamie 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. /RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486