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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 5, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the remark entered on February 5, 2026.
Claims 1-5, 10-11, 20 & 23 are pending in the current application.
Claims 1, 10 & 20 are amended.
Claims 6-9, 12-19, 21-22 & 24-26 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 02/05/2026, pages 8-11, regarding the rejection of claims 1, 10 & 20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered, and are moot upon further consideration and a new ground(s) of rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), 112(b), and 102(a)(1) as outlined below.
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 1-5, 10-11, 20 & 23 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 10 & 20, the Applicant amends the claim to include limitations of, “wherein the first coding parameter is a quantization parameter for the target block, the second coding parameter is information indicating a strength of deblocking filtering, and the third coding parameter is information indicating a prediction type used for prediction to generate the prediction block of the target block among a plurality of prediction types including intra prediction and inter prediction; wherein the neural network comprises a plurality of neural network modules, each neural network module of the plurality of neural network modules being configured to perform an independent operation as a sub-neural network, and wherein a second candidate block of the plurality of candidate blocks is generated based on at least one in-loop filtering process including a deblocking filtering process without using the neural network.” However the Applicant does not explain nor indicate where in the Specification such limitations are supported, nor has the Examiner found any support for such newly-added limitations. Therefore, the claim is rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement as introducing new matter.
Dependent claims 2-5, 11 & 23 fall accordingly.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is drawn to non-functional descriptive material. The claim recites, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream for image decoding, the bitstream comprising: weight information […]” but does not define the functional relationship between the non-transitory computer-readable medium and the encoded data. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP § 2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The a non-transitory computer-readable medium in claim 20 merely services as a support for the storage of the encoded data and provides no functional relationship between the non-transitory computer-readable medium and the encoded data. Therefore the encoded data is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III), thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(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) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 2018/0332298 A1) (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 15, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream for image decoding, the bitstream comprising: weight information,” that is utilized by the wherein steps of claim 20… wherein the scope of the claim is non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream for image decoding (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the weight information. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated.” MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed, “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 20 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream for image decoding, the bitstream comprising: weight information is anticipated by Liu which recites in the Abstract that encoding a weight subset flag into a particular portion of a bitstream, wherein the weight subset flag contains a weight subset index, and Paragraph [0038], the storage device may include any of a variety of distributed or locally accessed data storage media such as a hard drive, Blu-ray discs, digital video disks (DVD)s, Compact Disc Read-Only Memories (CD-ROMs), flash memory, volatile or non-volatile memory, or any other suitable digital storage media for storing encoded video data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 10-11, 15, 20 and 23 would be allowable if the rejections under 35 USC 112(a), 35 USC 112(b), and 35 USC 102(a)(2) are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The various claimed limitations mentioned in the claims are not taught or suggested by the prior art taken either singly or in combination, with emphasize that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements make them allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
/DANIEL CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487