DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 6/16/2026 for application number 18/095,420.
Claims 1-5, 16-21 are pending.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 21 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The original claims and new claim 21 are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, the subcombination in claim 21 has separate utility such as encoding a single-layer feature map with reduced channels that is simply analyzed and not reconstructed (for example, the analyze-then-compress paradigm disclosed in Redondi et al, see NPL [V] cited 3/16/2026). See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 21 has been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1, representative of claims 16 and 17, recites:
A method of that restores multi-layer feature maps, the method comprising: receiving a bitstream; reconstructing a single layer feature map by decoding the bitstream; and reconstructing the multi-layer feature maps from the single layer feature map; wherein, in response to the single layer feature map having a reduced number of channels, performing channel expansion on the single layer feature map to increase a number of channels of the single layer feature map.
(2A, prong 1) The underlined portions of the claim recite an abstract idea, specifically a mathematical calculation. Applicant’s specification (as well as the dependent claims) states that reconstructing features requires calculating upsampled or downsampled features for a plurality of layers (see para. 0214-56 of spec. as published), and performing channel expansion involves converting an integer to a real number via mathematical calculations (para. 0184-91 as published). The Examiner notes that although the claim does not explicitly recite an equation, the claim limitations are not merely based on a mathematical concept; “…a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols.” See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Here, in light of the specification, reconstructing features corresponding to a plurality of layers of a neural network and performing channel expansion requires arithmetic calculations.
(2A, prong 2) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional limitations of (1) receiving and decoding a bitstream and (2) generic computer hardware (the apparatus units in claim 16, non-transitory computer-readable medium in claim 17). Additional element (1) is insignificant extra-solution activity, because it is mere necessary data gathering for the abstract idea, and it does not meaningfully limit the claim. That is to say, this additional element merely functions to receive numerical values for use in the mathematical calculations, and this additional element is so broad it does not meaningfully limit the claim. Additional element (2) is a mere instruction to apply the exception because it merely adds generic computer hardware to the abstract idea after the fact. Even when considered in combination with the abstract idea, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception to the mathematical calculations.
(2B) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additional element (1) is well-understood, routine, and conventional, analogous to receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. See MPEP 2106.05(d) citing Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321; 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additional element (2) is a mere instruction to apply the exception as explained above. Even when considered in combination with the abstract idea, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because they only add insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional and mere instructions to apply the exception to the mathematical calculations. In other words, claim as a whole is directed to receiving data for mathematical calculations, and then performing the mathematical calculations on a computer, which does not amount to significantly more than the mathematical calculations themselves.
With respect to dependent claims 2-5, these claims add additional mathematical calculations to the mathematical calculations in the independent claims. Specifically, claim 2 recite the reconstruction calculations are performed using values from the received data, which is a further calculation. Claims 3-4 recite the calculations include upsampling and downsampling to different resolutions for different layers. Claim 5 recites upsamping algorithms.
With respect to dependent claim 18, this claim recites a reconstruction scheme is determined and used based on data in the received bitstream. The specification states that particular activation functions, like tanh or sigmoid, are included in the bitstream; thus, this limitation is a further mathematical calculation.
With respect to dependent claims 19-20, these claims recite “refining” feature values based on a mean, standard deviation, and minimum and maximum feature values. “Refining” a value based on mean and standard deviation is a mathematical calculation (the Examiner notes the Applicant points to paragraphs 195-96, as filed, for supporting these new claims, and those paragraphs describe dequantizing based on average, variance, minimum, and maximum values of feature values, i.e. a mathematical calculation).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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)(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) 1-5 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ahn et al. (US 2024/0056575 A1).
In reference to claim 1, Ahn discloses a method (para. 0004) that restores multi-layer feature maps (analytic neural network in the encoder, has a plurality of feature maps across layers in blocks, para. 0128-34, and the synthetic neural network in the decoder comprises a neural network that is symmetric to the analytic network with corresponding layers to reverse the transformation, para. 0153-57; thus, when the synthetic neural network reconstructs a picture or subpicture from a decoded feature map, para. 0164-65, 0088, the synthetic neural network is also reconstructing a plurality of feature maps across layers, with layers that correspond to the analytic neural network that created the decoded feature map), the method comprising: receiving a bitstream (bitstream of image feature map received, para. 0080-81, fig. 1); reconstructing a single layer feature map by decoding the bitstream (entropy decoding unit and dequantization unit reconstruct a single layer feature map, para. 0080-83 and fig. 1); and reconstructing the multi-layer feature maps from the single layer feature map (synthetic neural network reconstructs a picture or subpicture from a decoded feature map by reconstruction a plurality of feature maps, each map corresponding to a of layer, para. 0164-65); wherein, in response to the single layer feature map having a reduced number of channels, performing channel expansion on the single layer feature map to increase a number of channels of the single layer feature map (feature maps between layers of the analytic neural network have different numbers of channels, para. 0133, 0091, 0199; thus for the synthetic neural network to reverse a calculation of the analytic neural network that, for example, reduces channels by performing greyscale conversion, para. 0079, the synthetic neural network would have to increase the number of channels, for example by going from greyscale to red, green, and blue channels).
In reference to claim 2, Ahn discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a number of layers of the multi-layer feature maps determined based on information decoded from the bitstream (the encoded map indicates which block, i.e. one or more layers, of the plurality of blocks of the analytic neural network the feature map is from so the synthetic neural network can appropriately decode the feature map, para. 0116-18).
In reference to claim 3, Ahn discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the feature maps corresponding to the layers of the multi-layer feature maps have different spatial resolutions (different widths and heights, which are resolution, para. 0121).
In reference to claim 4, Ahn discloses the method of claim 3, wherein reconstructing the multi-layer feature maps comprises: reconstructing a first feature map corresponding to a first layer among the layers of the multi-layer feature maps, by upsampling the single layer feature map to match a spatial resolution of the first layer; and reconstructing a second feature map corresponding to a second layer among the layers of the multi-layer feature maps by downsampling the single layer feature map that is upsampled to the spatial resolution of the first layer, wherein the first feature map of the first layer has a largest spatial resolution among the multi-layer feature maps (each feature map in the neural network can have different widths and heights; therefore in a case where the layers of the analytic neural network of Ahn go from small -> largest -> small, i.e. downsample then upsample, the synthetic neural network would reverse the process and upsample then downsample, para. 0156).
In reference to claim 16, this claim is directed to an apparatus associated with the method claimed in claim 1 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale.
In reference to claim 17, this claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium associated with the method claimed in claim 1 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale.
In reference to claim 18, Ahn discloses the method of claim 1, wherein reconstructing the multi-layer feature maps comprises: determining a scheme to transform the single layer feature map to the multi-layer feature maps; and transforming the single layer feature map to the multi-layer feature maps based on the scheme; wherein the scheme is determined based on information decoded from the bitstream (the encoded map indicates which block, i.e. one or more layers, of the plurality of blocks of the analytic neural network the feature map is from so the synthetic neural network can appropriately decode the feature map, para. 0116-18).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (US 2024/0056575 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0082561 A1).
In reference to claim 19, Ahn does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, wherein reconstructing the single layer feature map comprises refining feature values in the single layer feature map; and wherein a refinement of the feature values in the single layer feature map is performed based on a mean value and a standard deviation value (Ahn teaches quantization and dequantization of the single layer feature map, but does not explicitly state how it is performed)
Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein reconstructing the single layer feature map comprises refining feature values in the single layer feature map; and wherein a refinement of the feature values in the single layer feature map is performed based on a mean value and a standard deviation value (quantization and dequantization are performed based on minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation values of features, see para. 0272-80, 0188-90, 0253).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art, having the teachings of Ahn and Kim before the earliest effective filing date, to modify the quantization of Ahn to include the mean and deviation of Kim.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the quantization of Ahn to include the mean and deviation of Kim because it helps more efficiently quantize and dequantize data (Kim, para. 0253).
In reference to claim 20, Kim further teaches the method of claim 19, wherein a minimum feature value and a maximum feature value are further used to refine the feature values in the single layer feature map (quantization and dequantization are performed based on minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation values of features, see para. 0272-80, 0188-90, 0253).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, with respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that reconstructing a feature map reduces an amount of data transmission, and are therefore not directed to an abstract idea. When determining patent subject matter eligibility when a claim is an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology, an examiner must consult the specification to see if the disclosed invention improves technology, ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement, and importantly, “… the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements … the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception.” See MPEP 2106.05(a). Here, the specification does appear to disclose a technical improvement in compressing data in a way that preserves data characteristics useful for deep neural networks. However, in the claim, the entirety of the improvement is derived from the mathematical calculations for reconstructing a feature map; the additional elements of receiving and decoding a bitstream and the generic computer hardware, even in combination with the mathematical calculations, do not provide a technical improvement. These additional elements, as explained in the 101 rejection above, only broadly tie the mathematical calculations to a computer and do not furnish an inventive concept.
Second, with respect to the 102 rejection, the Examiner notes the newly cited portions of Ahn above for the new limitations. In particular, Applicant cites different portions of Ahn that deal with subpictures and channel packing. However, these portions of Ahn are dealing with different components than those cited by the Examiner: for Example, in fig. 16, the synthetic neural network (which is generally relied on in the rejection for reconstructing a plurality of feature maps) is shown at reference numeral 1660 and analytic neural network is indicated at 1620; the picture packing unit 1680 and picture partition unit 1610 are separate components that are not relied upon in the rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 Andrew T. Chiusano whose telephone number is (571)272-5231. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10am-6pm.
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, Tamara Kyle can be reached at 571-272-4241. 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.
/ANDREW T CHIUSANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144
Prosecution Insights