DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1.The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Summary
2. This office action for US Patent application 18/400,345 is responsive to communications filed on 10/24/2025, in response to the Non-Final Rejection of 04/14/2025. Claims 1-12 and 16-20 have been cancelled. Claims 13-15 have been amended. New claims 21-23 have been added. Currently, claims 13-15 and 21-23 are pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's remarks see pages 5-6, filed on 10/24/2025, with respect to amendment and argument have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of new ground (s) of rejection, incorporating previous cited reference (s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 13-15, 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 13-15, 21-23 recite the limitations “pictures were removed by encoder”, “a first parameter identifying a neural network based model”, “a second parameter for determining a number of pictures“, “a third parameter for determining a number of pictures to be synthesized” and “a fourth parameter for indicating a quality factor” in the claims. These limitations are not disclosed in the specification and/or in the figures and therefore, this claim is likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 13-15 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 2019/0261016A1) (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 13, Liu discloses a method of decoder-side synthesis of video sequences (e.g., see abstract; Figs. 4, 9), the method comprising:
receiving a coded bitstream from which a plurality of pictures were removed by an encoder generating the bitstream (e.g., see Fig. 4, paragraphs 0043-0046: encoder 400), wherein the bitstream includes at least a parameter set including a first parameter identifying a neural network based model (e.g., see paragraphs 0048, 0067: train the first classifier using a convolution neural network), a second parameter for determining a number of pictures to be input into the model identified by the first parameter (e.g., see paragraphs 0046, 0048, 0049: number of pictures/frames/blocks; Figs. 3, 6, paragraphs 0041, 0053, 0054: a group of frames) and a third parameter for determining a number of pictures to be synthesized by the model identified by the first parameter in response to the pictures into to the model identified by the second parameter (e.g., see paragraph 0046: "the frame is segmented using a first classifier into a texture region and a non-texture region of an image in the frame; paragraph 0073: texture region that can be encoded using a homographic global motion model without artifacts may be referred to as a texture coding region; paragraphs 0004-0005: segmenting the frame using a first classifier; also see paragraphs 0025-0027: synthesized picture regions; also see Fig. 9, paragraphs 0089, 0090);
decoding the video, wherein decoding the video further comprises synthesizing the pictures removed by the encoder from the received pictures using a neural network based model in accordance with said one or more of said first, second and third parameters (e.g., see paragraph 0046, 0073: "the frame is segmented using a first classifier into a texture region and a non-texture region of an image in the frame; paragraphs 0004-0005: segmenting the frame using a first classifier into at least one of a texture region or a non-texture region of an image in the frame, the first classifier generated using a first machine-learning process, segmenting a texture region of the group of frames using a second classifier into a texture coding region or a non-texture coding region; also see paragraphs 0025-0027: synthesized picture regions; also see Fig. 9, paragraphs 0089, 0090).
Regarding claim 14, Liu discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the bitstream includes a second sequence of pictures from which no pictures were removed by the encoder (e.g., see Fig. 4, paragraphs 0043-0046: encoder 400) and wherein decoding the video further includes decoding the second sequence of pictures (e.g., see abstract, paragraphs 0004-0005: video sequence).
Regarding claim 15, Liu discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the parameter set further includes a fourth parameter indicating a quality factor for the synthesized pictures and the synthesizing the pictures (e.g., see paragraph 0046, 0073; paragraphs 0004-0005: segmenting the frame using a first classifier) removed by the encoder is performed in accordance with the fourth parameter (e.g., see Fig. 4, paragraphs 0043-0046: encoder 400).
Regarding claim 21, this claim is a video decoder claim of a method version as applied to claim 13 above, wherein the video decoder performs the same limitations cited in claim 13, the rejections of which are incorporated herein. Furthermore, Liu discloses a video decoder (see Fig. 1 and 9).
Regarding claim 22, it contains the limitations of claims 14 and 21, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Regarding claim 23, it contains the limitations of claims 15 and 21, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Conclusion
6. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground (s) of rejection (incorporating/using previous cited reference(s)) presented in this office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 extension fee 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ON MUNG whose telephone number is (571) 270-7557 and whose direct fax number is (571) 270-8557. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am - 6pm (ET).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on (571)272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ON S MUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486