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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in EP on 06/21/2021, an application filed in EP on 07/21/2021, an application filed in EP on 08/30/2021, and an application filed in EP on 09/16/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP 21305845.6, EP 21306026.2, EP 21306163.3 and EP 21306276.3 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
CONTINUING DATA
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2022/066476 06/16/2022
FOREIGN APPLICATIONS
EP 21305845.6 06/21/2021
EP 21306026.2 07/21/2021
EP 21306163.3 08/30/2021
EP 21306276.3 09/16/2021
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 11-13, 22, 23, 25, 28, 36, 38-40, 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2022/0084204 A1) in view of Cho (US 2019/0306526 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, Li discloses a method/an apparatus (e.g. abstract, Fig. 4) comprising: obtain a first latent representation of the image using an inversion of a generative adversarial network (e.g. Fig. 4 Paragraph [0091, 0092], GAN generator generates labels of synthetic version of input image using initial latent code 411), obtain a second latent representation of the at least one image from the first latent representation of the image, using an invertible transformation (e.g. Fig. 4 and Paragraph [0093], process inverse optimization module to generate an updated latent code).
Although Li discloses codec (e.g. Paragraph [0267], video encoders/decoders); it fails to explicitly disclose encoding at least one image and encoding the latent representation.
However, Cho teaches encoding at least one image (e.g. Fig. 1) and encoding the latent representation (e.g. Paragraph [0706]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of the invention to incorporate latent code coder as taught as CHO with the method/apparatus of Li in order to improve coding efficiency with machine learning model.
Regarding Claim 3, Cho further teaches a latent space of the second latent representation is obtained from an unfolding of a latent space of the generative adversarial network based on a rate-distortion constraint (e.g. Fig. 27 and Paragraph [0734]).
Regarding Claim 7, Cho further teaches encoding comprises at least one of quantization or entropy coding (e.g. Fig. 1, Paragraph [0204]).
Regarding Claims 11, 28, 43, Li discloses the invertible transformation is a normalizing flow (e.g. Paragraph [0073]).
Regarding Claims 12, 13, Li discloses a method/an apparatus comprising: obtain a first latent representation of the at least one first image using a generative adversarial network (e.g. Fig. 4 Paragraph [0091, 0092], GAN generator generates labels of synthetic version of input image using initial latent code 411), obtain a second latent representation of the at least one first image from the decoded first latent representation using an invertible transformation (e.g. Fig. 4 and Paragraph [0093], process inverse optimization module to generate an updated latent code).
Although Li discloses codec (e.g. Paragraph [0267], video encoders/decoders); it fails to explicitly disclose decoding the latent representation and generate at least one image from the latent representation.
However, Cho teaches decoding the latent representation (e.g. Paragraph [0706]) and generate at least one image from the latent representation (e.g. Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of the invention to incorporate latent code coder as taught as CHO with the method/apparatus of Li in order to improve coding efficiency with machine learning model.
Regarding Claim 22, Cho further teaches at least one of dequantization or entropy decoding (e.g. Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 23, Cho further teaches entropy decoding uses a same trained entropy model for decoding (e.g. Paragraph [0228]).
Regarding Claim 25, Li discloses mapping the first latent representation from a proxy latent space designed for compression to a latent space of the generative adversarial network using the invertible transformation (e.g. Li, Paragraph [0076]).
Although Li discloses codec (e.g. Paragraph [0267], video encoders/decoders); it fails to explicitly disclose decoding the latent representation and generate at least one image from the latent representation.
However, Cho teaches decoding the latent representation (e.g. Paragraph [0706]) and generate at least one image from the latent representation (e.g. Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of the invention to incorporate latent code coder as taught as CHO with the method/apparatus of Li in order to improve coding efficiency with machine learning model.
Regarding Claim 36, Li discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a bitstream comprising image or video data representative of a latent representation of at least one first image (e.g. Paragraph [0570]) obtained according to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 38, Li discloses a computer readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions for causing one or more processors (e.g. Paragraph [0570]) to perform the method of claim 12.
Regarding Claim 39, Li discloses at least one of (i) an antenna configured to receive a signal, the signal including data representative of at least one image (e.g. Paragraph [0140, 0197]), (ii) a band limiter configured to limit the received signal to a band of frequencies that includes the data representative of the at least one image, or (iii) a display configured to display at least one part of the at least one image (e.g. Paragraph [0139]).
Regarding Claim 40, Li discloses a television (TV), a cell phone, a tablet or a set top box (e.g. Paragraph [0384]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 14-17, 20, 21, 44, 45 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of references Li and Cho is based on impermissible level of hindsight. However, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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, Li teaches inventible transformation is a normalizing flow (e.g. Para [0073] states “a generative network that is used a normalizing flow”).
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kalarot (US 2022/0391611 A1), discloses latent model for multi-attribute;
Luo (US 2022/0375024 A1), discloses hierarchical variational encoder.
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 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 YULIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-1043. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM - 6PM.
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.
/YULIN SUN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights