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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Du et al. US 2022/0295053.
In regard to claim 20, it is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein a bitstream generated by acts. Significantly, the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium is NOT implementing any actual method; no instructions/steps are being executed. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data output from and/or generated by a series of acts. In other words, these claims are directed to a mere machine-readable medium storing data content (a bitstream generated by a method).
Applicant therefore seeks to patent the storage of a bitstream in the abstract. In other words, the claim seeks to patent the content of the information (bitstream comprising video information) and not the process itself. Moreover, this stored bitstream does not impose any definitive physical organization on the data as there is no functional relationship between the bitstream and the storage medium. In conclusion, the identified claim and any claims depending therefrom are directed to mere data content (bitstream generated by a series of acts) stored as a bitstream on a computer-readable storage medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, the Examiner found and continues to find that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, this claim is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. Therefore, the claim is anticipated by
Du, which discloses
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored therein a bitstream comprising video information generated by acts (Fig. 3 and 33)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. US 2022/0295053 in view of Lee et al. EP 3651462
Du discloses:
18. and under similar rationales 1, 19, 20. 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 (Fig. 33): and perform the conversion based on the applying (Figs. 4-8; Figs. 27; 0204; 0212-8).
Du does not explicitly disclose the following, however Lee teaches apply, during a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video unit, a plurality of filters in combination based on a model to the video unit (Figs. 2, 13);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to have a plurality of filters which can be combined variably, i.e. a flexibly, and process a video signal through the combination of the plurality of filters, thereby adjusting a resolution of a video (or an image) (Lee 0081)
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the applying is adaptive (0240).
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the applying is dependent on statistics of the video unit (0186-93) .
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the model is a linear model or a neural network (NN) model (0189).
5. The method of claim 1, wherein samples output by the plurality of filters are put into a decoded picture buffer, or a final display signal (Fig. 5: loop filter 556; render device 512; current picture buffer 558).
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of filters comprise a NN filter and/or a non-NN filter (Figs. 27; 0212-8).
7. The method of claim 1, wherein samples of the video unit are clipped by applying the plurality of filters (0218).
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the model is a linear model (0189; 0218).
12. The method of claim 1,
Du does not explicitly disclose the following, however Lee teaches wherein whether to and/or a way to utilize a fusion result of the plurality of filters is dependent on at least one of: a coding mode of the video unit, a coding statistic of the video unit, a prediction mode, QP, a temporal layer, a slice type, a quantization step, a block size of the video unit, color components, or a signal in the bitstream (0153; 0157-9; 0165).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to have a plurality of filters which can be combined variably, i.e. a flexibly, and process a video signal through the combination of the plurality of filters, thereby adjusting a resolution of a video (or an image) (Lee 0081)
13. The method of claim 1,
Du does not explicitly disclose the following, however Lee teaches wherein a model of a first filter in the plurality of filters is a simplified version of a model of a second filter in the plurality of filters (Fig. 2; 0080-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to have a plurality of filters which can be combined variably, i.e. a flexibly, and process a video signal through the combination of the plurality of filters, thereby adjusting a resolution of a video (or an image) (Lee 0081)
14. The method of claim 1,
Du does not explicitly disclose the following, however Lee teaches wherein the conversion is performed based on at least one syntax element indicating enabling of combined applying of a plurality of filters. (Fig. 2; 0080-2; 0157-9; 0165).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to have a plurality of filters which can be combined variably, i.e. a flexibly, and process a video signal through the combination of the plurality of filters, thereby adjusting a resolution of a video (or an image) (Lee 0081)
15. The method of claim 14,
Du does not explicitly disclose the following, however Lee teaches wherein the at least one syntax element is indicated at a first level (0136-8; Fig. 2; 0080-2; 0157-9; 0165).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to have a plurality of filters which can be combined variably, i.e. a flexibly, and process a video signal through the combination of the plurality of filters, thereby adjusting a resolution of a video (or an image) (Lee 0081)
16. The method of claim 14,
Du does not explicitly disclose the following, however Lee teaches wherein the at least one syntax element is indicated at a second level different from a first level. (0136-8; Fig. 2; 0080-2; 0157-9; 0165).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to have a plurality of filters which can be combined variably, i.e. a flexibly, and process a video signal through the combination of the plurality of filters, thereby adjusting a resolution of a video (or an image) (Lee 0081)
17. 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 (Figs. 5-8).
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. US 2022/0295053 in view of Lee et al. EP 3651462 and further in view of Zhang et al. US 2021/0385500
9. The method of claim 8,
Du does not explicitly disclose the following, however Zhang teaches wherein the linear model is represented by: y = ∑a.sub.k*x.sub.k +b, wherein y represents a fusion sample which is output from the plurality of the filters, x.sub.k represents a filtered sample of a filter f.sub.k in the plurality of the filters, k represents an index of the filter f.sub.k and k is from 1 to K, K represents the total number of the plurality of the filters, and a.sub.k, and b are parameters of the linear model (0129; equ. 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to use integer arithmetic for fixed point precision computations (Zhang 0129).
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of filters are dependent on coding statistics of the video unit (0186-93).
Du does not explicitly disclose the following, however Zhang teaches whether to and/or how to construct one or more candidate lists (0113-5)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to prediction of GALF coefficients is used for inter coded frames to minimize signaling overhead (Zhang 0115).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to teach or reasonably suggest all the claimed features of claims, structurally and functionally interconnected with other limitations in the manner as cited in the claims and dependent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W BECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7301. The examiner can normally be reached flexible usually 10-6.
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 G 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.
/JOSEPH W BECKER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2483