DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on 23 SEPTEMBER 2026.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-12 have been amended. No claims have been canceled or added. Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-12 are pending and herein examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 12 have been considered and found to be persuasive for the reasons outlined below.
With regard to claim 1 and the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2025/0008171 A1 (hereinafter “Chen”) in view of Gao Y. et al., “[AHG9] Study on SEI processing order SEI message use cases”, JVET-AI0098-v1, 12-19 July 2024 (hereinafter “Gao Y.”), published on 05 July 2024., Applicant alleges:
“Because Gao’s syntax conditions the second bit on the first bit being true (i.e., equal to 1), when po_sei_importance_flag[i] is 0, the second bit po_sei_processing_degree_flag[i] is not transmitted at all. Thus, Gao’s conditional structure provides only three usable states (i.e., 0, 10, and 11) and cannot represent the 01 state (where po_sei_importance_flag[i] is 0 and po_sei_processing_degree_flag[i] is 1). Indeed, the Office Action acknowledges that Gao “allows only three usable cases, i.e., 0, 10, and 11.” (Remarks, p. 2.)
The Examiner concedes Gao can only represent three usable states; however, Applicant’s Specification only contains definitions for three usable states. See Specification, ¶¶ [1021-1026]. There also does not appear to be an embodiment in which the value of po_sei_processing_degree_flag[i] is processed without consideration of po_sei_importance_flag[i]. See Drawings, FIG. 35. The Specification defines part of the novelty to be based on combining precisely said two flags into a single syntax element labeled po_sei_importance_flag[i]. See Specification, ¶ [1029]. The Examiner indicated as such in the previous correspondence. See Final Rejection OA, 06/23/2026, ¶ 9.
The claims differ from the prior-arts of record in the ability to signal four usable states instead of three usable states, yet only three usable states are actually defined in Applicant’s Specification, as outlined above. The functionality of the three usable states is the same as those in the prior-arts, which is evidenced by the rejection of record. Therefore, removing the use of po_sei_importance_flag[i] to not be used in conditioning po_sei_processing_degree_flag[i] does not functionally change any decoding procedures and instead increases signaling overhead. As explained above, this is solved by signaling just the syntax element po_sei_importance_flag[i]. Applicant’s representative was contacted on 09/27/2026 to discuss the unsupported claim limitations in favor of the syntax element po_sei_importance_flag[i]. No one was available to discuss the proposed amendment for advancing prosecution. See attached PTO-413B.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, and 10 each recite “po_sei_importnance_flag[i]” and should read --po_sei_importance_flag[i]--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to claims 1, 8, and 12, the original Specification does not support the limitation, “wherein po_sei_processing_degree_flag[i] is included for every index i without conditioning presence of po_sei_processing_degree_flag[i] on a value of po_sei_importance_flag[i].” Upon review of the specification, ¶ [1021] introduces the flag po_sei_processing_degree_flag[i] as being conditional on po_sei_importance_flag[i] and provides an illustrative drawing in FIG. 35.
PNG
media_image1.png
384
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 35, reproduced above, clearly shows po_sei_processing_degree_flag[i] is conditional based on po_sei_importance_flag[i]. There is no disclosure in the specification where po_sei_processing_degree_flag[i] is described without being conditional, as depicted in FIG. 35. Therefore, the limitation is considered new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3-7, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 3, the following table exemplifies equivalent limitations of claim 1 with claim 3:
Claim 1
Claim 3
[…] wherein po_sei_processing_degree_flag[i] is included for every index i without conditioning presence of po_sei_processing_degree_flag[i] on a value of po_sei_importance_flag[i] […]
wherein po_sei_processing_degree_flag[i] is included in the processing order information regardless of whether po_sei_importance_flag[i] is equal to 0 or 1.
The subject of claim 3 describes the values of po_sei_importance_flag[i] as being “equal to 0 or 1,” which are the only two possible values given po_sei_importance_flag[i] is defined as a 1-bit flag in claim 1. Therefore, the limitation of claim 3 is not further limiting.
Regarding claim 4, the following table exemplifies equivalent limitations of claim 1 with claim 4:
Claim 1
Claim 4
[…] wherein po_sei_importance_flag[i] and po_sei_importance_degree_flag[i] collectively form a two-bit importance indication capable of representing each of four values 0, 1, 2, and 3.
wherein the two-bit importance indication is capable of representing a value in which po_sei_importance_flag[i] is equal to 0 and po_sei_processing_degree_flag[i] is equal to 1.
The subject matter of claim 4 defines one out of four possible values capable of being represented by the two-bit importance indication. The two-bit importance indication is described as covering four values, which are possible by the flag combinations equal to 00, 01 (i.e., claim 4), 10, and 11. Therefore, the limitation of claim 4 is not further limiting.
Regarding claim 5, the following table exemplifies equivalent limitations of claim 1 with claim 5:
Claim 1
Claim 5
[…] the processing order information includes […] a po_sei_payload_type[i] based on 12 bits […]
wherein po_sei_payload_type[i] is included in the processing order information based on 12 bits.
The subject matter of claim 5 reiterates the po_sei_payload_type[i] is based on 12 bits, as also required by claim 1. Therefore, the limitation of claim 5 is not further limiting.
Regarding claim 6, the following table exemplifies equivalent limitations of claim 1 with claim 6:
Claim 1
Claim 6
[…] wherein po_sei_importance_flag[i] and po_sei_importance_degree_flag[i] collectively form a two-bit importance indication capable of representing each of four values 0, 1, 2, and 3.
wherein the two-bit importance indication is capable of representing four different combinations of po_sei_importance_flag[i] and po_sei_processing_degree_flag[i].
The subject matter of claim 6 reiterates there are four different combinations capable by the two flags, which is captured by the four values 0, 1, 2, and 3 required by claim 1. Therefore, the limitation of claim 6 is not further limiting.
Regarding claim 7, the following table exemplifies equivalent limitations of claim 1 with claim 7:
Claim 1
Claim 7
[…] a po_sei_importance_flag[i] based on 1 bit, a po_sei_processing_degree_flag[i] based on 1 bit […]
wherein po_sei_importance_flag[i] and po_sei_processing_degree_flag[i] are each included based on 1 bit.
The subject matter of claim 7 reiterates the two flags are each based on 1 bit, as required by claim 1. Therefore, the limitation of claim 7 is not further limiting.
Regarding claim 10, the following table exemplifies equivalent limitations of claim 8 with claim 10:
Claim 8
Claim 10
[…] a po_sei_importance_flag[i] based on 1 bit, a po_sei_processing_degree_flag[i] based on 1 bit […]
wherein po_sei_importance_flag[i] and po_sei_processing_degree_flag[i] are each included based on 1 bit.
The subject matter of claim 10 reiterates the two flags are each based on 1 bit, as required by claim 8. Therefore, the limitation of claim 10 is not further limiting.
Regarding claim 11, the following table exemplifies equivalent limitations of claim 8 with claim 11:
Claim 8
Claim 11
[…] the processing order information includes […] a po_sei_payload_type[i] based on 12 bits […]
wherein po_sei_payload_type[i] is included in the processing order information based on 12 bits.
The subject matter of claim 11 reiterates the po_sei_payload_type[i] is based on 12 bits, as also required by claim 8. Therefore, the limitation of claim 11 is not further limiting.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
WO 2025/148445 (hereinafter “Gao”) – Gao discloses a plurality of sei_processing_order tables, some of which include a combination of po_sei_importance_flag[i] and po_sei_processing_degree_flag[i]. See Gao, pp. 12-22.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-0677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 AM - 5PM 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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/STUART D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights