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 .
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 12-13, 15-16, and 18-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12036036. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are broader in scope than the claims in conflicting U.S. Patent No. 12036036.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, of the instant application corresponds to claims 12, 12, 12, 13, 15, 15, 16, 18, 18, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 1, 1, 4, 6, 6, and 9, respectively, of conflicting U.S. Patent No. 12036036.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fersch (WO 2020/187587) in view of Li (2022/0101095).
As for claims 1 and 15, Fersch discloses an apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus (page 4, line 32-page 5, line 3) at least to perform:
receiving a media bitstream comprising one or more media units (“By generating the media bitstream including the at least one set of parameters and the media data, the at least one parameters for updating the neural network can thus be conveyed together with the media data to the decoder”; page 7, lines 2-8, 18-34)
and at least a first enhancement information message, wherein the first enhancement information message comprises or identifies a neural network (“neural_network_id”: Table 1 & page 9), and
wherein the received media bitstream comprises a third enhancement information message (page 11, lines 7-14);
decoding the one or more media units (page 2, line 29-page 3, line 2); and
using the neural network to enhance (page 11, lines 7-14) or filter (page 9) the decoded one or more media units within a temporal scope (“the at least one set of parameters is time aligned, in the media bitstream, with the corresponding media data” page 7, lines 18-page 8, line 8).
However, Fersch fails to disclose:
using the neural network to enhance or filter the decoded one or more media units within a temporal scope determined with the third enhancement information message.
In an analogous art, Li discloses:
using the neural network to enhance or filter the decoded one or more media units within a temporal scope determined with the third enhancement information message (Neural network post filter is used on the decoded data to enhance or filter within a temporal scope based on the parameters in the parameters found in the bitstream; [0162], [0180], [0181], [0195]-[0200], [0219], [0225], [0316]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fersch’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Li, for the advantage of conserving bandwidth.
As for claims 2 and 16, Fersch discloses wherein the received media bitstream further comprises container comprising the first enhancement information message (see Fersch pages 9-10; Table 1 on page 9 is a container which comprises a first enhancement information message).
As for claim 3, Fersch discloses wherein the container further comprises a second enhancement information message, and wherein the second enhancement information message comprises an update to the neural network (see Fersch pages 9-10; Table 1 on page 9 is a container which comprises a second enhancement information message. The second enhancement information message comprises an update to the neural network (“upd_type”)). and
wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform:
updating the neural network based on the update (Fersch: page 2, line 29-page 3, line 2, page 4, lines 3-9); and
using the updated neural network to enhance or filter the decoded one or more media units within the temporal scope (Li: Neural network post filter is used on the decoded data to enhance or filter within a temporal scope based on the parameters in the parameters found in the bitstream; [0162], [0180], [0181], [0195]-[0200], [0219], [0225], [0316])
As for claim 4, Fersch discloses wherein the update to the neural network is represented by a neural network representation bitstream (page 13, lines 9-33, page 1, lines 9-11, page 2, lines 13-22).
As for claims 5 and 12, Li discloses wherein the container comprises a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) network abstraction layer (NAL) unit and the first and third enhancement information messages comprise SEI messages ([0197], [0329]).
As for claim 6, Fersch discloses wherein the container comprises an identifier for the neural network, receiving within the media bitstream the identifier for the neural network as discussed above in claim 21. Li discloses the method further comprises: receiving within the media bitstream a filter activation SEI message, wherein the filter activation SEI message indicates activation identified by the identifier within the temporal scope determined by the filter activation SEI message ([0195], [0197]).
As for claims 7 and 14, Fersch discloses wherein the temporal scope comprises:
one or more areas within second one or more frames of the decoded one or more media units (page 7, lines 27-33, page 11, lines 7-11);
As for claims 8 and 18, Fersch discloses an apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus (page 4, line 32-page 5, line 3) at least to perform:
encoding a media bitstream comprising one or more media units (“By generating the media bitstream including the at least one set of parameters and the media data, the at least one parameters for updating the neural network can thus be conveyed together with the media data to the decoder”; page 7, lines 2-8, 18-34);
encoding, within the media bitstream, at least a first enhancement information message (see Fersch pages 9-10) and a third enhancement information message (page 11, lines 7-14);
encoding, within the first enhancement information message, a neural network or an identification of the neural network (pages 9-10);
wherein the neural network is intended to be used to enhance (page 11, lines 7-14) or filter (page 9) decoded one or more media units within a temporal scope (“the at least one set of parameters is time aligned, in the media bitstream, with the corresponding media data” page 7, line 18-page 8, line 8)
However, Fersch fails to disclose:
using the neural network to enhance or filter the decoded one or more media units within a temporal scope determined with the third enhancement information message.
In an analogous art, Li discloses:
using the neural network to enhance or filter the decoded one or more media units within a temporal scope determined with the third enhancement information message (Neural network post filter is used on the decoded data to enhance or filter within a temporal scope based on the parameters in the parameters found in the bitstream; [0162], [0180], [0181], [0195]-[0200], [0219], [0225], [0316]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fersch’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Li, for the advantage of conserving bandwidth.
As for claims 9 and 19, Fersch discloses wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: encoding, within the media bitstream, a container, the container comprising at least the first enhancement information message (see Fersch pages 9-10; Table 1 on page 9 is a container which comprises a first enhancement information message).
As for claim 10, Fersch discloses wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform:
encoding, within the container, a second enhancement information message; encoding, within the second enhancement information message, an update to the neural network (see Fersch pages 9-10; Table 1 on page 9 is a container which comprises a second enhancement information message. The second enhancement information message comprises an update to the neural network (“upd_type”)), wherein:
the update to the neural network is intended to be used for updating the neural network (Fersch: page 2, line 29-page 3, line 2, page 4, lines 3-9); and
the updated neural network is intended to be used to enhance or filter the decoded one or more media units within the temporal scope (Li: Neural network post filter is used on the decoded data to enhance or filter within a temporal scope based on the parameters in the parameters found in the bitstream; [0162], [0180], [0181], [0195]-[0200], [0219], [0225], [0316]).
As for claim 11, Fersch discloses wherein the update to the neural network is represented by a neural network representation bitstream (page 13, lines 9-33, page 1, lines 9-11, page 2, lines 13-22).
As for claims 13 and 20, Fersch discloses wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform:
encoding, within the container, an identifier for the neural network (see rejection of claim 8);
Li discloses:
encoding, within the media bitstream, a filter activation SEI message ([0195]-[0200]);
wherein the third enhancement information message encoded within the media bitstream comprises the filter activation SEI message ([0195]-[0200]);
encoding, within the filter activation SEI message, the identifier for the neural network ([0167]-[0171]); and
indicating, within the filter activation SEI message, activation of the neural network identified by the identifier within the temporal scope determined by the filter activation SEI message ([0195]-[0200], [0219], [0225], [0316]).
As for claim 17, Fersch discloses wherein the container comprises an identifier for the neural network, and the method further comprises:
receiving within the media bitstream a filter activation SEI message comprising the identifier for the neural network as discussed above in claim 15.
Li discloses
wherein the filter activation SEI message indicates activation of the neural network identified by the identifier within the temporal scope determined by the filter activation SEI message ([0195], [0197]),
wherein the third enhancement information message comprises the filter activation SEI message ([0195], [0197]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAIYA A CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8567. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-3:00 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, NATHAN FLYNN can be reached at (571)272-1915. 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.
SUMAIYA A. CHOWDHURY
Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/SUMAIYA A CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421