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 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.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 18 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18 depends on claim 17, which is now a cancelled claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 - 6, 9, 11 - 15, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 2023/0069953, hereafter Chen) in view of Guo et al (US 2024/0323441, hereafter Guo).
As per claim 1, Chen discloses a method for video decoding performed by at least one processor, the method comprising:
receiving a video bitstream comprising a current block in a current picture (¶ 53 and 54); and reconstructing the current block by transforming the current block by a neural network comprising a plurality of upsample modules and activation modules (¶ 57 - 62), wherein at least one of the activation modules comprises a LeakyReLu function and a convolution function (¶ 12, 112, and 116), at least one of the activation modules comprises a LeakyReLu function and a convolution function, and reconstructing the current block comprises at least one of multiplying and adding an input to the at least one of the activation modules to an output of the at least one of the LeakyReLu function and the convolution function (Figure 6; ¶ 92).
However, Chen does not explicitly teach multiplying an input to the at least one of the activation modules to an output of the at least one of the LeakyReLu function and the convolution function, and adding the input to the at least one of the activation modules to result of multiplying the input to the at least one of the activation modules to the output of the at least one of the LeakyReLu function and the convolution function.
In the same field of endeavor, Guo discloses multiplying an input to the at least one of the activation modules to an output of the at least one of the LeakyReLu function and the convolution function, and adding the input to the at least one of the activation modules to result of multiplying the input to the at least one of the activation modules to the output of the at least one of the LeakyReLu function and the convolution function (Figure 16b; ¶ 244 - 249).
However, Chen or Guo does not explicitly teach the convolution function comprises a 1x1 kernel, an output of the LeakyReLu function is an input to the convolution function.
In the same field of endeavor, discloses teach the convolution function comprises a 1x1 kernel, an output of the LeakyReLu function is an input to the convolution function.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as effectively filed to modify the invention Chen in view of Guo. The advantage improved coding performance.
As per claim 2, Chen discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein at least a second one of the activation modules further comprises second LeakyReLu function, and an output of a convolution function of the at least second one of the activation modules is an input to the second LearkyReLu function (Figure 6; shows example of LeakyReLU output connected to convolution function).
As per claim 4, Chen discloses the method according to claim 1.
However, Chen does not explicitly teach wherein, of the at least one of the activation modules, an output of multiplication function is an input to an addition function of the at least one of the activation modules.
In the same field of endeavor, Guo teaches wherein, of the at least one of the activation modules, an output of multiplication function is an input to an addition function of the at least one of the activation modules (Figure 16b; ¶ 244 and 249).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Chen in view of Guo. The advantage is improved video enhancement.
As per claim 5, Chen discloses the method according to claim 4.
However, Chen does not explicitly teach the at least one of the activation modules consists of the LeakyReLu function, the convolution function, the multiplication function and the addition function.
In the same field of endeavor, Guo teaches the at least one of the activation modules consists of the LeakyReLu function, the convolution function, the multiplication function and the addition function. (Figure 16b; ¶ 244 - 249).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Chen in view of Guo. The advantage is improved video enhancement.
Regarding claim 11, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 2 are applicable for claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 4 are applicable for claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 5 are applicable for claim 15.
Regarding claim 19, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 9 are applicable for claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 20.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 10, and 16 - 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Guo (hereafter Chen) in further view of Kwon et al (US 2022/0237744, hereafter Kwon).
As per claim 8, Chen discloses the method according to claim 2.
However, Chen does not explicitly teach wherein, of the at least one of the activation modules, an output of the multiplication function is an input to an addition function of the at least one of the activation modules.
In the same field of endeavor, Kwon teaches wherein, of the at least one of the activation modules, an output of the multiplication function is an input to an addition function of the at least one of the activation modules (Figure 6; ¶ 93 and 94).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Chen in view of Kwon. The advantage is improved video enhancement.
As per claim 10, Chen discloses the method according to claim 1.
However, Chen does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the upsample modules comprises a pixel shuffle layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Kwon teaches wherein at least one of the upsample modules comprises a pixel shuffle layer (¶ 94).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Chen in view of Kwon. The advantage is improved video enhancement.
Regarding claim 18, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 8 are applicable for claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 21 - 23 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.
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 CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4:30 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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
