DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, 10-14, 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amended claim 1, applicant argued that Kim fails to teach “the image decoding device switches, based on a size of each of the plurality of decoded feature images, between ascending order and descending order for the prescribed scan order.”
However, examiner respectfully disagrees. Despite of applicant’s argument, Kim teach a number of embodiments interrelated to each other. Kim teach a determination order may be one of raster scan order, Z-scan, N-scan, up-right diagonal scan, horizontal scan, and vertical scan (paragraph 0270). Kim teach image reconstructing device determining a determination order of reference coding units in the processing block based on the size of processing block (Fig. 23, paragraph 0274), which means a determination order may be one the mentioned. Kim further teach a scenario of different types of determination order (e.g., raster scan order/ ascending, and inverse raster scan order/descending) of reference coding units for respective processing blocks in reconstructing an image (paragraph 0278). Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions presented in Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that switching determination order between ascending and descending for different processing blocks based on size would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success.
Thus, rejection is proper and maintained.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10-14, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (WO2021050007) in view of Ikonin et al. (US2023/0353764) and Kim et al. (US2020/0389658).
To claim 1. Chen teach an image decoding method comprising, by an image decoding device:
receiving, from an image encoding device, a bitstream including encoded data of a plurality of feature maps for an image (Fig. 11, paragraph 0094, received bitstream);
decoding the plurality of feature maps using the bitstream (Figs. 14A-B, paragraph 0094, de-pack feature maps);
selecting a first feature map from the plurality of decoded feature maps and outputting the first feature map to a first task processing device that executes a first task process based on the first feature map; and selecting a second feature map from the plurality of decoded feature maps and outputting the second feature map to a second task processing device that executes a second task process based on the second feature map (paragraph 0094, plurality of de-quantized feature maps may then constitute a plurality of reconstructed deep feature maps 1448 which may then be passed to task-specific models to perform visual analysis; wherein selecting feature map would be an obvious step in sequential process to transmit/forward a feature map to further task processing under the broadest reasonable interpretation), wherein,
each of the plurality of feature maps includes a plurality of feature images for the image, the image decoding device decodes the plurality of feature images (paragraphs 0114-0115),
the image decoding device constructs each of the plurality of feature maps by arranging the plurality of decoded feature images in a prescribed scan order (obvious in Ikonin, paragraphs 0329-0330, 0393-0394, reconstruction in a predefined order of processing; moreover, arranging decoded feature images in a prescribed scan order is a well-known practice in the art, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate to further implementation detail of reconstruction, hence Official Notice is also taken).
But, Chen do not expressly disclose the image decoding device switches, based on a size of each of the plurality of decoded feature images, between ascending order and descending order for the prescribed scan order.
In furthering said obviousness, Ikonin teach decoding a plurality of feature maps from a bitstream (paragraph 0009), wherein selected feature map is conveyed for respective task processing (paragraph 0220), wherein each of the plurality of feature maps includes a plurality of feature images for the image, the image decoding device decodes the plurality of feature images (paragraph 0097), the image decoding device constructs each of the plurality of feature maps by arranging the plurality of decoded feature images in a prescribed scan order (obvious in Ikonin, paragraphs 0329-0330, 0393-0394, reconstruction in a predefined order of processing, e.g., a default processing order).
Kim teach wherein the image decoding device switches, based on a size of each of the plurality of decoded feature images, between ascending order and descending order for the prescribed scan order (Fig. 23; paragraph 0270, a determination order may be one of raster scan order, Z-scan, N-scan, up-right diagonal scan, horizontal scan, and vertical scan; paragraph 0274 image reconstructing device determining a determination order of reference coding units in the processing block based on the size of processing block; paragraph 0278, a scenario of different types of determination order, e.g., raster scan order/ ascending, and inverse raster scan order/descending, of reference coding units for respective processing blocks in reconstructing an image. Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions presented in Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that switching determination order between ascending and descending for different processing blocks based on size would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Ikonin and Kim into the method of Chen, in order to implement reconstruction processing order by design preference.
To claim 18, Chen, Ikonin and Kim teach an image decoding device (as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claim 8, Chen, Ikonin and Kim teach claim 1.
Chen, Ikonin and Kim teach wherein each of the plurality of feature maps includes a plurality of segments, each of the plurality of segments includes the plurality of feature images, the image decoding device constructs each of the plurality of segments by arranging the plurality of decoded feature images in the prescribed scan order, and constructs each of the plurality of feature maps by arranging the plurality of segments in a prescribed order (Kim, paragraphs 0266-0270).
To claim 10, Chen, Ikonin and Kim teach claim 1.
Chen, Ikonin and Kim teach wherein the bitstream includes order information which sets one of ascending order or descending order for the prescribed scan order, and the image decoding device switches, based on the order information, between ascending order and descending order for the prescribed scan order (Kim, paragraphs 0106-0110, 0145-0148, 0198, 0256, 0274, 0278).
To claim 11, Chen, Ikonin and Kim teach claim 1.
Chen, Ikonin and Kim teach wherein the plurality of feature images includes a plurality of types of feature images of different sizes, and the image decoding device decodes the plurality of feature images with a constant decoding block size corresponding to a smallest size of the plurality of sizes of the plurality of types of feature images (Kim, paragraphs 0109-0110, 0130, 0147-0148, 0267, wherein the smaller size would be obvious because a smaller size is adapted when in comparison).
To claim 12, Chen, Ikonin and Kim teach claim 1.
Chen, Ikonin and Kim teach wherein the plurality of feature images includes a plurality of types of feature images of different sizes, and the image decoding device decodes the plurality of feature images with a plurality of decoding block sizes corresponding to the plurality of sizes of the plurality of types of feature images (Kim, paragraphs 0269-0278).
To claim 13, Chen, Ikonin and Kim teach claim 1.
Chen, Ikonin and Kim teach wherein the prescribed scan order is raster scan order (Kim, paragraph 0270).
To claim 14, Chen, Ikonin and Kim teach claim 1.
Chen, Ikonin and Kim teach wherein the prescribed scan order is Z scan order (Kim, paragraph 0270).
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 ZHIYU LU whose telephone number is (571)272-2837. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays: 8:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Stephen R Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
ZHIYU . LU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2669
/ZHIYU LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665 March 21, 2026