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, see REMARKS, filed 06/25/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 15-16 under Requirement for Restriction/Election have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the claims have been rejoined and examined.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejection on claim 1, applicant argued that each of feature maps of Chen is not task-corresponding feature map selected by the image decoding device and individually routed to a corresponding task processing device. Applicant also argued that Chen is not a one-decoder architecture that avoids providing multiple encoder/decoder set for multiple task processing devices. Applicant then argued Ikonin and Kim individually failed to teach limitations of argued claim and deficiencies of Chen, wherein there is no rationale for combining the three prior arts.
However, examiner respectfully disagrees. Despite the applicant’s argument, argued claim does not limit the reason or basis of feature map selection for task processing. The argued term “selection” merely means picking one from a group, which does not inherit the reason or basis, e.g., priority, random, comparison, timing, sequential etc. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, argued limitation is interpreted as any feature map pulled for a task process. Chen does teach such execution of passing feature maps to different task processing. As for the argument of one-decoder architecture, Chen does teach one-decoder operates with received bitstream (Fig. 14A). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As analogous arts, Ikonin and Kim do respectfully teach respective features as explained in rejection below that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as implementable into the method of Chen. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, features taught by Ikonin and Kim teach do provide advantages in either efficiency or implementation option, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the method of Chen by design preference.
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, 10-16, 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).
To claim 15, Chen, Ikonin and Kim teach claim 1.
Chen, Ikonin and Kim teach wherein the bitstream includes encoded data on the image, and the image decoding device: decodes the image using the bitstream; and executes the decoding of the plurality of feature maps and the decoding of the image using a common decoding processing unit (Ikonin, decoder 30 of Fig. 7B, paragraph 0175, receive encoded picture data such as encoded bitstream).
To claim 16, Chen, Ikonin and Kim teach claim 1.
Chen, Ikonin and Kim teach wherein the first task process and the second task process include at least one of object detection, object segmentation, object tracking, action recognition, pose estimation, pose tracking, and hybrid vision (Ikonin, paragraphs 0153-0164, computer vision tasks, such as object detection and segmentation).
Conclusion
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 August 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights