DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/28/2025, 10/30/2025, and 06/03/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 3, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12425661 in view of Choi et al. (US 20220337811) (hereinafter Choi).
Regarding claim 1,
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12425661 Claim 1
A method for video encoding, comprising:
A method for video decoding, comprising:
signaling, by an encoder, a control flag in a slice header level, wherein the control flag is to be used to determine whether at least one syntax element related to a rice parameter is signaled for a slice, wherein the control flag is a residual coding disabled flag, and wherein the at least one syntax element comprises a syntax element related to a residual coding rice index; and
receiving, by the decoder, a control flag in a slice header level, wherein the control flag is used to determine whether at least one syntax element related to a rice parameter is signaled for a slice, wherein the control flag is a residual coding disabled flag, and wherein the at least one syntax element comprises a syntax element related to a residual coding rice index;
signaling, by the encoder, the at least one syntax element in the slice header level, wherein the at least one syntax element is to be used to determine the rice parameter.
in response to determining that the at least one syntax element is signaled, receiving, by the decoder, the at least one syntax element in the slice header level, wherein the at least one syntax element is used to determine the rice parameter;
Although claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12425661 does not specify signaling in an encoding process, Choi paragraphs 197-198 teaches encoding and decoding inverse processes and how flags are signaled and received and page 11 table 2 teaches SPS control flag syntax. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention disclosed by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12425661 with the encoding and decoding inverse processes and how flags are signaled and received and SPS control flag syntax of Choi in order to have the invention of U.S. Patent No. 12425661 operating in the reciprocal encoding form and with SPS control flag syntax.
Claim(s) 2-6 and 12-13 is/are rejected for their dependence on claim(s) 1.
Regarding claim 7,
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12425661 Claim 8
A computing device for video encoding, comprising:
A computing device for video decoding, comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more processors; and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform operations comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform operations comprising:
signaling a control flag in a slice header level, wherein the control flag is to be used to determine whether at least one syntax element related to a rice parameter is signaled for a slice, wherein the control flag is a residual coding disabled flag, and wherein the at least one syntax element comprises a syntax element related to a residual coding rice index; and
receiving a control flag in a slice header level, wherein the control flag is used to determine whether at least one syntax element related to a rice parameter is signaled for a slice, wherein the control flag is a residual coding disabled flag, and wherein the at least one syntax element comprises a syntax element related to a residual coding rice index;
signaling the at least one syntax element in the slice header level, wherein the at least one syntax element is to be used to determine the rice parameter.
in response to determining that the at least one syntax element is signaled, receiving the at least one syntax element in the slice header level, wherein the at least one syntax element is used to determine the rice parameter;
Although claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12425661 does not specify signaling in an encoding process, Choi paragraphs 197-198 teaches encoding and decoding inverse processes and how flags are signaled and received and page 11 table 2 teaches SPS control flag syntax. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention disclosed by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12425661 with the encoding and decoding inverse processes and how flags are signaled and received and SPS control flag syntax of Choi in order to have the invention of U.S. Patent No. 12425661 operating in the reciprocal encoding form and with SPS control flag syntax.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected for their dependence on claim(s) 7.
Regarding claim 14,
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12425661 Claim 3
A method for video decoding, comprising:
A method for video decoding, comprising:
receiving, by a decoder, a control flag in a slice header level and a control flag in a Sequence Picture Set (SPS) level, wherein the control flag in the slice header level and the control flag in the SPS level are used to determine whether at least one syntax element related to a rice parameter is signaled for a slice;
receiving, by the decoder, a control flag in a slice header level…receiving, by the decoder, a control flag in a slice header level…wherein the control flag is a residual coding disabled flag, and wherein the at least one syntax element comprises a syntax element related to a residual coding rice index…in response to determining that the residual coding rice flag is equal to 1, determining, by the decoder, that the residual coding rice flag indicates that the syntax element related to the residual coding rice index is present in a current slice…
in response to determining that the at least one syntax element is signaled, receiving, by the decoder, the at least one syntax element in the slice header level, wherein the at least one syntax element is used to determine the rice parameter; and
in response to determining that the at least one syntax element is signaled, receiving, by the decoder, the at least one syntax element in the slice header level, wherein the at least one syntax element is used to determine the rice parameter; and
entropy decoding, by the decoder, the video bitstream based on the control flag in the slice header level, the control flag in the SPS level and the at least one syntax element.
entropy decoding, by the decoder, the video bitstream based on the control flag and the at least one syntax element.
Although claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12425661 does not specify SPS control flag syntax, Choi paragraphs 197-198 teaches encoding and decoding inverse processes and how flags are signaled and received and page 11 table 2 teaches SPS control flag syntax. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention disclosed by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12425661 with the encoding and decoding inverse processes and how flags are signaled and received and SPS control flag syntax of Choi in order to have the invention of U.S. Patent No. 12425661 operating in the reciprocal encoding form and with SPS control flag syntax.
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected for their dependence on claim(s) 14.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (US 20220337811) (hereinafter Choi).
Regarding claim 13, this claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by a method. Significantly, the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium is not implementing any method; no instructions/steps are being executed. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data output from and/or generated by a method. In other words, these claims are directed to a mere machine-readable medium storing data content (a bitstream generated by an method).
Applicant seeks to patent the storage of a bitstream in the abstract. In other words, the claim seeks to patent the content of the information (bitstream with video content) and not the process itself. Moreover, this stored bitstream does not impose any definitive physical organization on the data as there is no functional relationship between the bitstream and the storage medium. In conclusion, this claim is directed to mere data content (bitstream generated by the recited method) stored as a bitstream on a computer-readable storage medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, this claim is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. Therefore, this claim is anticipated by Choi, as Choi paragraph 34 discloses a computer readable medium storing a coded bitstream.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under non-statutory double patenting rejections, with claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), as detailed above, but would be allowable if those rejections were overcome, due to containing subject matter allowable for similar reasons as noted in parent application 18/125705 (US 12425661).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 1 contains the limitations regarding a control flag in a slice header level, wherein the control flag is used to determine whether a residual coding index is signaled for a slice. At the time of the effective filing date of the application, these limitations had not been fully anticipated and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine elements of the prior art to meet this limitation. Independent claim(s) 7 and 14 contain(s) allowable subject matter for the same reasons as claim 1. The claim(s) depending on these claim(s) contain allowable subject matter for the reasons concerning these claim(s).
The closest prior art, Bross et al. ("Versatile Video Coding [Draft 10], JVET June 22-July 1 2020), Choi et al. (US 20220337811), Misra et al. (US 20200036968), Chen et al. (US 20220141466), Jun et al. (US 20180316913), Salehifar et al. (US 20210084314), Yoo et al. (US 20200177882), Gamei et al. (US 20160295214), Xu et al. (US 20210021841), Poirier et al. (US 20210144391) either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious the above described limitations. While the prior art teaches rice parameters for decoding, the prior art is silent regarding a control flag in a slice header level, wherein the control flag is used to determine whether a residual coding index is signaled for a slice. Applicant’s 05/01/2025 remarks in application 18/125705, page 9, cites, “Specifically, although the cited pages above of Bross may disclose residual coding control flags (which include e.g., sh_ts_residual_codingdisabledflag) in a slice header level, the cited pages of Bross fail to disclose, teach or suggest using the "control flag in a slice header level" (i.e. "a residual coding disabled flag") to "determine whether at least one syntax element related to a rice parameter is signaled for a slice, ...wherein the at least one syntax element comprises a syntax element related to a residual coding rice index," and in response to determining that the at least one syntax element [that comprises the syntax element related to residual coding rice index] is signaled, receiving the at least one syntax element in the slice header level, as featured in amended claim 1.
Further, Bross, as a whole, fails to disclose "a syntax element related to a residual coding rice index," let alone the above particular relationship between the "syntax element related to residual coding rice index" and the "residual coding disabled flag."
Moreover, as acknowledged by the OA, on page 3, Bross does not explicitly teach the rice parameter signaling as needed for the limitations of claim 1, e.g., Bross does not explicitly teach using the "control flag in a slice header level" to "determine whether at least one syntax element related to a rice parameter is signaled for a slice." See the OA, page 3. The OA then relies on Choi's paragraphs [0179] and [0196]- [0198] as teaching such features. Choi, paragraph [0197] (disclosing that "[i]f the syntax element (or flag) representing the information on the rice parameter lookup table is obtained from the bitstream, the decoding apparatus may select the rice parameter lookup table represented by the syntax element among the plurality of rice parameter lookup tables, and may derive the rice parameter for the current transform coefficient based on this.")
However, Applicant respectfully submits that "the syntax element (or flag) representing the information on the rice parameter lookup table" in Choi cannot be equated with "a residual coding disabled flag" in amended claim 1 because according to claim 1, the "residual coding disabled flag" is used to "determine whether at least one syntax element related to a rice parameter is signaled for a slice, ...wherein the at least one syntax element comprises a syntax element related to residual coding rice index," which Choi fails to disclose.” Examiner agrees with applicant’s characterization of the best prior art references not teaching a syntax element related to a residual coding rice index. The references Choi et al. (US 20230102088), Rusanovskyy et al. (US 20220337812), Jhu et al. (US 20230291906), Naser et al. (US 20240298011) contain teachings regarding residual coding rice flags at the SPS level, but are ineligible as prior art due to their earliest priority dates falling after applicant’s effective filing date. Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date of the application, these limitations had not been fully anticipated and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine elements of the prior art to meet this limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew D Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-3527. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30am - 5:30pm EST.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571) 272-7383. 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.
/MATTHEW DAVID KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights