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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/27/26 has been entered.
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)(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, 2, 8 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2025/0211738).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a decoding apparatus for decoding coded data (see 124 in fig. 1), the decoding apparatus comprising: a header decoder circuitry that decodes characteristics information of a neural network post-filter (e.g. see ¶ [0131]) and activation information of the neural network post-filter from the coded data (e.g. see ¶ [0132]); an attribute image decoder circuitry that decodes an attribute image (see output of 301 to 302-303 in fig. 3) from the coded data; and an attribute image filter circuitry that performs post-filtering processing of the attribute image (e.g. see ¶ [0130]), wherein the header decoder circuitry further decodes a target identifier (e.g. see ¶ [0131]), cancel information (e.g. see ¶ [0130]), and persistence information from the activation information (e.g. see ¶ [0135]), and a value of the persistence information being equal to zero specifies that a target neural-network post-filter indicated by the target identifier is used for refining a current picture only (e.g. see ¶ [0135]), and the value of the persistence information being equal to one specifies that the target neural-network post-filter indicated by the target identifier is used for refining the current picture and all subsequent pictures (e.g. see ¶ [0135]).
Regarding claim 2, Wang further discloses wherein the cancel information comprises information for the post-filtering processing (e.g. see ¶ [0130]).
Regarding claim 8, Terada discloses wherein the header decoder is further configured to decode a strength variable that is input as a channel of an input tensor in units of attribute images (see 302-303 in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, the claim(s) recite a coding apparatus (see 114 in fig. 1) with analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 11, the claim(s) analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
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 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 of this title, 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang.
Regarding claim 3, although Wang discloses wherein the header decoder is further configured to decode an attribute image count (e.g. see ¶ [0152]) and the target identifier, the cancel information, and the persistence information are, decoded for attribute images count, it is noted that Wang does not provide the particular of decoding for attribute images I, where i=0…attribute count-1.
Although it is not explicitly recited, it is conventional in the art for respectively decoding coded information and decoding to count-1. The Examiner takes official notice that respectively decoding coded information and decoding to count-1 is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to implement such practice for the benefit of compatibility to properly process coded images in industries standard decoding systems.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 8 and 10-11 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Xie (US 2025/0150584), discloses coding/decoding with activating neural network filtering.
2. Pham Van et al. (US 2023/0108175), discloses coding/decoding with activating filtering.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD T TORRENTE whose telephone number is (571)270-3702. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6:45-3:15 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, Jay Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2988. 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.
/RICHARD T TORRENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights