DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendments and Remarks received 01/09/2026 in which claims 2–6 are cancelled, claims 1, 7, and 8 are amended, and claims 9–11 are added as new claims.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendments to the claims, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn. Remarks, 7.
On page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the understanding of the skilled artisan, when interpreting the teachings of Sullivan, is that “Sullivan merely discloses the constraint of the SEI processing order SEI messages.” Examiner is unclear regarding Applicant’s argument. Examiner reiterates the finding explained, infra, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections. Specifically, the portion of Sullivan referenced in Applicant’s argument explains that a processing order identifier shall have identical parameter values for SEI processing order SEI messages such that where the parameters are not identical, a different processing order identifier is required. Applicant goes on to argue on page 9 of the Remarks, that Applicant’s differentiating feature is that Applicant’s claimed invention describes SEI messages differing in [ i ] (index) values and thus not included together in the same SEI processing order information. Examiner finds that is exactly what Sullivan is disclosing. Sullivan teaches the prefix information, for a given index, [ i ], must be identical for the information to be included under one processing order ID. Sullivan makes no requirement for differing index values of [ i ], which Applicant asserts is the scenario claimed, such that Sullivan’s requirement, drawn only to parameters having a same [ i ], allows (suggests) Applicant’s claimed scenario in which “different SEI messages are associated with the same SEI processing order information.” Remarks, 9. However, given this explanation, Applicant does not argue that which is claimed. Later, on page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant asserts the actual claim language, which appears contradictory to Applicant’s arguments. The claim language for claim 1 recites that, when the prefix information does not match, a first SEI message is associated with first SEI processing order information while no second SEI message is associated with the first SEI processing order information. Examiner finds, on this record, Applicant has failed to specifically and clearly articulate the supposed differences between the claimed subject matter and the teachings of at least Sullivan. For these reasons, Examiner is unpersuaded of error.
Examiner further notes, with respect to the above averred feature, JVET-AF0065-v1, cited under the Conclusion of this and the last Office Action, states, “For any two different non-negative integer values of m and n, the values of po_sei_payload_type[ m ] and po_sei_payload_type[ n ] shall not be identical unless po_sei_prefix_flag[ m ] and po_sei_prefix_flag[ n ] are both equal to 1.”
Other claims are not argued separately. Remarks, 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 and 7–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin (US 2024/0283978 A1), Sanchez De La Fuente (US 11,962,765 B1) (herein “Sanchez”), and Sullivan et al., “SEI processing order and processing order nesting SEI messages in VVC (draft 6),” JVET-AF2027-v1, 32nd Meeting: Hannover, DE, October 2023 (herein “Sullivan”).
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Yin, Sanchez, and Sullivan teaches or suggests a method for decoding image information, the method comprising: obtaining each of: supplemental enhancement information (SEI) processing order information for a processing order for a group of types of SEI messages (Yin, ¶ 0036: teaches an SEI message that indicates processing order of SEI messages according to payload type; Sanchez, col. 3, ll. 37–44: teaches processing order information can define a subset (i.e. group) of SEI messages), and processing order nesting information that includes a processing order nesting (PON) nested message (Sullivan, page 8: teaches pon_processing_order[ i ] specifies the position of the i-th processing-order-nested SEI message); and deriving the processing order based on the SEI processing order information (see Yin and Sanchez cited previously), wherein the SEI processing order information includes each of: payload type information for a type of an SEI message (see Yin and Sanchez cited previously), prefix present information for whether prefix information of the SEI message is present or not (Sanchez, col. 3, ll. 52–59: teaches processing order information can include prefix information that identifies SEI messages or can include other information that is not prefix information to identify SEI messages; Examiner interprets this to mean what is explained on page 8 of Sulivan, when it is explained that when more than one SEI processing order SEI message is present in the CVS, the value of po_sei_prefix_flag must be the same as in the other SEI processing order SEI messages in the CVS; see Sullivan, 3rd full paragraph on page 8 starting with: “When more than one….”; see also the constraint on page 9 explaining when the prefix flag indicates prefix information is present (3rd hash/bullet)), wrapping information for whether the SEI message is included in the processing order nesting information or not (Sullivan, page 7: teaches SEI processing order information includes, in addition to payload type information and prefix information, a po_sei_wrapping_flag[ i ]), and processing order information for the processing order for the type of the SEI message (Yin, ¶ 0036: teaches an SEI message that indicates processing order of SEI messages according to payload type; see also Sanchez, Fig. 4 and col. 2, ll. 1–24: teaching processing order information applying in a hierarchical fashion for a type of SEI message; see also Sullivan, page 7), and wherein, when a first SEI message that is not included in the processing order nesting information and that has no prefix information and that has a first type is associated with first SEI processing order information, no second SEI message that is not included in the processing order nesting information, that has prefix information and that has the first type is associated with the first SEI processing order information (Sullivan, page 7: teaches the po_id syntax element and explains with respect to that syntax element that processing orders can be treated as alternatives or may be applied complementary such that when complimentary processing orders are present, the SEI messages can be treated independently, i.e. it does not depend on another SEI processing order message and when alternatives is indicated, at most one group is chosen to be applied; Examiner interprets this limitation to mean what is explained on page 8 of Sullivan, when it is explained that when more than one SEI processing order SEI message is present in the CVS, the value of po_sei_prefix_flag must be the same as in the other SEI processing order SEI messages in the CVS; see Sullivan, 3rd full paragraph on page 8 starting with: “When more than one….”; see also the constraint on page 9 explaining when the prefix flag indicates prefix information is present (3rd hash/bullet); Thus, these teachings of Sullivan, when combined, explain that a given po_id must have consistent prefix information and that otherwise the SEI messages would be treated as having different po_id thus excluded from one another).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Yin, with those of Sanchez, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the art of SEI processing order SEI messages would be led to their relevant teachings, because both Yin and Sanchez explain the processing order of SEI information can influence the quality of the decoded picture, and because combining Yin and Sanchez’s processing order SEI messages represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Yin and Sanchez used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Yin and Sanchez, with those of Sullivan, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the art of SEI processing order SEI messages would be led to their relevant teachings and because Sullivan demonstrates that the publication is a combination of the contributions of both Yin and Sanchez and others, and because Sullivan combines the ideas of nested processing order information, persistence, and SEI wrapping as variously introduced by Sanchez and Yin such that the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Yin, Sanchez, and Sullivan used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Claim 7 lists the same elements as claim 1, but is drawn to the corresponding encoding method rather than the decoding method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 8 lists the same elements as claim 1, and includes a preamble that may require a further step of transmitting the data, which is a step also captured within the claimed elements. Therefore, the claim is interpreted as nearly identical to claim 1, and thus the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Yin, Sanchez, and Sullivan teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein, when the first SEI message that is not included in the processing order nesting information and that has no prefix information and that has the first type is associated with the first SEI processing order information, no third SEI message that is included in the processing order nesting information, that has prefix information and that has the first type is associated with second SEI processing order information in a current coded layer video sequence (CLVS) (Examiner interprets this claim as essentially saying that where inheritance is proper, between first and third information, the third information is not treated as separate, second information, different from first information; The combination of prior art teaches both combining and separating processing order information in terms of nesting based on whether given syntax elements and data structure are in agreement (represent an alignment); For separability: Sullivan, page 7: teaches the po_id syntax element and explains with respect to that syntax element that processing orders can be treated as alternatives or may be applied complementary such that when complimentary processing orders are present, the SEI messages can be treated independently, i.e. it does not depend on another SEI processing order message and when alternatives is indicated, at most one group is chosen to be applied; Examiner interprets this to mean what is explained on page 8 of Sullivan, when it is explained that when more than one SEI processing order SEI message is present in the CVS, the value of po_sei_prefix_flag must be the same as in the other SEI processing order SEI messages in the CVS; see Sullivan, 3rd full paragraph on page 8 starting with: “When more than one….”; Thus, these teachings of Sullivan, when combined, explain that a given po_id must have consistent prefix information and that otherwise the SEI messages would be treated as having different po_id thus excluded from one another; For combinability: Sanchez, col. 4, ll. 1–10: teaches inheritance of processing order information; Sullivan, page 8: explains nesting SEI messages should be applied only as parts of the processing chain identified by an associated processing order SEI message and be applied in a manner consistent with the processing chain of the associated SEI processing order; In other words, the nested SEI information should be treated as part of the parent SEI message rather than separately; see also Sullivan, page 9: explaining when parent and child are in agreement and thus associated rather than treated separately).
Claim 10 lists the same elements as claim 9, but is drawn to the corresponding encoding method rather than the decoding method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 9 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 11 lists the same elements as claim 9, and includes a preamble that may require a further step of transmitting the data, which is a step also captured within the claimed elements. Therefore, the claim is interpreted as nearly identical to claim 9, and thus the rationale for the rejection of claim 9 applies to the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
He (US 2024/0015332 A1) teaches receiving SEI processing order SEI message indicating a preferred processing order of SEI messages (Abstract). It also teaches payload type is a manifest for the payload of the message (¶ 0005) and that SEI messages can have many types indexed to an index value (e.g. ¶¶ 0075–0076). It explains processing order of SEI is important because post-filter processes performed out of the preferred order “may result in sub-optimal results.” (¶ 0083).
Hannuksela (US 2023/0112309 A1) teaches an SEI manifest SEI message conveys information regarding expected (likely) SEI messages although not necessarily guaranteed to be present and, for each type of likely message, whether the message type is necessary, unnecessary, or undetermined. “Necessary” is to be interpreted loosely as necessary for a best user experience, but not technically necessary for the bitstream to be considered conforming to the video compression Standard (¶ 0317).
Hannuksela, “AHG9: On the SEI processing order SEI message,” JVET-AF0049-v1, 32nd Meeting: Hannover, DE, October 2023. The publication teaches processing order nesting SEI message rather than wrapping SEI messages (Abstract).
Chen et al., “AHG9: On the SEI processing order SEI message (Part 1),” JVET-AF0065-v1, 32nd Meeting: Hannover, DE, October 2023.
Chen et al., “AHG9: On the SEI processing order SEI message (Part 2),” JVET-AF0067-v1, 32nd Meeting: Hannover, DE, October 2023.
Sullivan et al., “Proposed modifications of the draft SEI processing order SEI message in VVC,” JVET-AF0189-v1, 32nd Meeting: Hannover, DE, October 2023.
Yin (US 2025/0211799 A1) teaches neural network post filtering processing order SEI messages (e.g. ¶ 0111) and a list of contributions to the field of processing order SEI messaging (¶ 0112).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8933.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J HESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2481