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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/27/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant previously filed claims 1-20. Claims 1, and 18-20 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Li et al. fails to teach “wherein the plurality of filters are independent filters, wherein one of the independent filters is not same with other filters, and one or more parts of the independent filters are different”. However, examiner disagrees. As examiner has explained in the 112 rejection above, the language of this entire limitation is replete with issue and indefinite, and can not be treated as claimed. While the claim amendment better defines what a “part” could be, it is also unclear how they are meant to be “different”, and how that relates to them being independent filters. For the purposes of examination, independent filters with different parts are merely interpreted to be different filters, and only requires one of their “parts” to be different. In Paragraph 4, Li et al. teaches “The disclosed aspects/embodiments provide one or more neural network (NN) filter models trained as part of an in-loop filtering technology or filtering technology used in a post-processing stage for reducing the distortion incurred during compression. In addition, samples with different characteristics are processed by different NN filter models. The present disclosure also elaborates how to design multiple NN filter models, how to select from multiple NN filter models, and how to signal the selected NN filter index.” In Paragraph 5, it teaches “A first aspect relates to a method implemented by a coding apparatus. The method includes selecting a neural network (NN) filter model from a plurality of NN filter model candidates for each video unit, wherein the NN filter model selected for a first video unit is different than the NN filter model selected for a second video unit; and converting between a video media file and a bitstream based on the NN filter model selected for each video unit.” In Paragraph 7, it teaches “Optionally, in any of the preceding aspects, another implementation of the aspect provides that the video unit is one of a sequence of pictures, a picture, a slice, a tile, a brick, a sub-picture, a coding tree unit (CTU), a CTU row, and a coding unit (CU), and wherein the plurality of NN filter model candidates corresponding to each of the sequence of pictures, the picture, the slice, the tile, the brick, the sub-picture, the CTU, the CTU row, and the (CU is different.” In Paragraph 9, it teaches “Optionally, in any of the preceding aspects, another implementation of the aspect provides that the first set of NN filter model candidates contains a different number of the NN filter model candidates than the second set of NN filter model candidates.” In Paragraph 23, it teaches “A second aspect relates to an apparatus for coding video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor cause the processor to: select a neural network (NN) filter model from a plurality of NN filter model candidates for each video unit, wherein the NN filter model selected for a first video unit is different than the NN filter model selected for a second video unit; and convert between a video media file and a bitstream based on the NN filter model selected for each video unit.” In Paragraph 24, Li et al. teaches “when executed by one or more processors, cause the coding apparatus to: select a neural network (NN) filter model from a plurality of NN filter model candidates for each video unit wherein the NN filter model selected for a first video unit is different than the NN filter model selected for a second video unit” In Paragraph 71, Li et al. teaches “The coding flow of a typical video coder/decoder (a.k.a., codec) is discussed. FIG. 5 is an example of encoder block diagram of VVC, which contains three in-loop filtering blocks: deblocking filter (DF), sample adaptive offset (SAO) and adaptive loop filter (ALF). Unlike DF, which uses predefined filters, SAO and ALF utilize the original samples of the current picture to reduce the mean square errors between the original samples and the reconstructed samples by adding an offset and by applying a finite impulse response (FIR) filter, respectively, with coded side information signaling the offsets and filter coefficients. ALF is located at the last processing stage of each picture and can be regarded as a tool trying to catch and fix artifacts created by the previous stages.” Here it clearly teaches different NN filter models which could be used, and as such clearly and unambiguously meets the limitation of “the one or more parts comprise at least one of… a neural network model of the filter”. The above teachings are interpreted to teach the limitations as filed.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the specification teaches specific combinations such as: combining NN filters with non-NN filters; parallel application of filters with same input; sequential application where output of one filter becomes input of another; fusion of filtered samples using specific mathematical models; the specific combination approaches, particularly the fusion methodology; the combination of filters can be adaptive based on coding modes, QP values, temporal layers, slice types, and other parameters. ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In light of the above remarks, the claims are rejected as before.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention, and failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
The term “independent” in claims 1 and 18-20 are relative terms which renders the claims indefinite. The term “independent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what independent filters means in this regard and thus renders the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, independent filters are merely interpreted to be different filters. Applicant is required to amend to better claim their invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1 and 18-20 recite the broad recitation “the plurality of filters are independent filters”, and the claims also recite “one of the independent filters is not the same with other filters” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Furthermore, these two statements are in direct contradiction with one another. First it states that the plurality of filters are independent filters, implying that they are all different, and then it goes on to state that “one of the independent filters” is not the same as other filters, which implies that only one of the filters is truly independent. Applicant is required to amend to better claim their invention.
The term “parts” and “different” in claims 1 and 18-20 are relative terms which renders the claims indefinite. The term “parts” and “different” in the statement “and one or more parts of the independent filters are different” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what independent filters means in this regard and thus renders the claim indefinite. While the claim amendment better defines what a “part” could be, it is also unclear how they are meant to be “different”, and how that relates to them being independent filters. For the purposes of examination, independent filters with different parts are merely interpreted to be different filters, and only requires one of their “parts” to be different. Applicant is required to amend to better claim their invention.
Therefore, the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 20220191483 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Li et al. teaches a method of video processing (Abstract), comprising:
applying, during a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, a plurality of filters in combination to the video unit, wherein the plurality of filters are independent filters, wherein one of the independent filters is not same with other filters, and one or more parts of the independent filters are different, and wherein the one or more parts comprise at least one of: an input of the filter, a structure of the filter, a parameter of the filter, or a neural network model of the filter (Paragraphs 4-26; Paragraphs 71-74; Paragraphs 185-199; Paragraph 215); and
performing the conversion based on the filtered video unit (Paragraphs 4-26; Paragraphs 71-74).
Regarding Claim 2, Li et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of filters comprises a neural network (NN) filter and a non-NN filter (Paragraphs 185-199; Paragraph 215).
Regarding Claim 3, Li et al. teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the non-NN filter comprises one of: a deblocking filter, a sample adaptive offset (SAO) filter, a bilateral in-loop filter (BIF), an adaptive loop filter (ALF), a cross-component SAO (CCSAO) filter, or a cross-component ALF (CCALF) (Paragraph 215).
Regarding Claim 4, Li et al. teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the NN filter comprises a convolutional neural network (CNN) based in-loop filter (Paragraphs 154-158; Paragraph 215).
Regarding Claim 5, Li et al. teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the NN filter and the non-NN filter are applied according to a predetermined order or an adaptive order (Paragraphs 71-74; Paragraph 215).
Regarding Claim 6, Li et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of filters comprises a first NN filter and a second NN filter (Paragraphs 4-26; Paragraphs 71-74).
Regarding Claim 7, Li et al. teaches the method of claim 6, wherein if a first NN model of the first NN filter and a second NN model of the second NN filter are same, a first input of the first NN model and a second input of the second NN model are different (Paragraphs 172-199; Paragraph 215).
Regarding Claim 8, Li et al. teaches the method of claim 7, wherein quantization parameters (QPs) used for the first and second NN filters are different (Paragraphs 172-200; Paragraph 208; Paragraph 215).
Regarding Claim 9, Li et al. teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the QPs are input parameters of the first and second NN models (Paragraphs 172-200; Paragraph 208; Paragraph 215).
Regarding Claim 10, Li et al. teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the first and second NN models are different for different QPs (Paragraphs 172-200; Paragraph 208; Paragraph 215).
Regarding Claim 11, Li et al. teaches the method of claim 6, wherein a first NN model of the first NN filter and a second NN model of the second NN filter are different (Paragraphs 172-200; Paragraph 208; Paragraph 215).
Regarding Claim 12, Li et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of filters is combined as a filter (Paragraphs 172-201; Paragraph 208; Paragraph 213; Paragraph 215).
Regarding Claim 13, Li et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a fourth filter is separated with plurality of filters (Paragraphs 172-201; Paragraph 208; Paragraph 213; Paragraph 215).
Regarding Claim 14, Li et al. teaches the method of claim 13, wherein input information of the plurality of filters and the fourth filter is different (Paragraphs 172-201; Paragraph 208; Paragraph 213; Paragraph 215).
Regarding Claim 15, Li et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of filters comprises same filters (Paragraphs 172-201; Paragraph 208; Paragraph 213; Paragraph 215).
Regarding Claim 16, Li et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of filters is an internal stage of a filtering process of the video unit (Paragraphs 172-201; Paragraph 208; Paragraph 213; Paragraph 215).
Regarding Claim 17, Li et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the video unit into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the video unit from the bitstream (Paragraph 5; Paragraphs 23-24).
Apparatus claims 18-19 are drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 1 above. These claims recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons using the same art and evidence as discussed above. Li et al. further teaches an apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform the method; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform the method (Paragraphs 23-24; Paragraph 221; Paragraphs 265-266); and that the filters are applied during a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video (Paragraphs 4-26).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 claims a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III).
The memory storing the claimed bitstream in claim 20 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Wang which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream.
Li et al. discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by the method performed by a video processing apparatus (Paragraphs 23-24; Paragraph 221; Paragraphs 265-266)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights