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 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 – 3, 5, 12, 13, 15, 24 – 27, and 29 - 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solovyev et al (US 2024/0161488, hereafter Solovyev) in view of Ding et al (US 2022/0101492, hereafter Ding).
As per claim 1, Solovyev discloses method of video decoding, comprising:
decoding a residue block in a latent space for a block of a picture (¶ 259; The bitstream may be decoded by the hyper prior decoder to obtain reconstructed latent space residuals);
obtaining a predicted latent block for said block based on one or more neighboring latent blocks of said picture; obtaining a latent block for said block- based on said residue block and said predicted latent block (¶ 145; Therefore, the intra prediction uses reconstructed neighboring samples of a frame and ¶ 259; The reconstructed latent space residuals are combined in the latent space domain with the prediction (also in the latent space domain); and
inverse transforming said latent block for said block to reconstruct said block in a pixel domain (¶ 94 and 134).
However, Solovyev does not explicitly teach wherein pixel reconstruction of decoded latent blocks in said picture is performed selectively.
In the same field of endeavor, Jiang teaches wherein pixel reconstruction of decoded latent blocks in said picture is performed selectively (¶ 168 and 169).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively field to modify the invention of Solovyev in view of Jiang. The advantage is more efficiently encoded than the original pixels, and better coding performance.
As per claim 2, Solovyev discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that said block is to be reconstructed in said pixel domain, wherein said block is reconstructed in said pixel domain only if said block is determined to be reconstructed (¶ 258 and 259).
As per claim 3, Solovyev discloses the method of claim 2, wherein a computer vision task is performed in order to determine that said block is to be reconstructed in said pixel domain (¶ 207; in general, the output of the decoding side does not need to be a reconstructed picture for human viewing. It may be feature data for or results of computer processing such as computer vision processing or the like.).
As per claim 5, Solovyev discloses the method of claim 1, wherein one or more convolution layers or one or more fully connected layers followed by activation functions are applied to obtain said predicted latent block (¶ 378; The output signal of the activation function may be used as an input of a next convolutional layer.).
Regarding claim 12, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 5 are applicable for claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 5 are applicable for claim 15.
Regarding claim 24, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 24.
Regarding claim 25, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 2 are applicable for claim 25.
Regarding claim 26, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 3 are applicable for claim 26.
Regarding claim 27, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 5 are applicable for claim 27.
Regarding claim 29, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 29.
Regarding claim 29, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 5 are applicable for claim 29.
Regarding claim 30, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 5 are applicable for claim 30.
Regarding claim 31, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 5 are applicable for claim 31.
Claim(s) 10, 16, 18, 28, 32 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solovyev in view of Ding (hereafter Solovyev) in further view of Jiang et al (US 2022/0215592, hereafter Jiang).
As per claim 10, Solovyev discloses the method of claim 1, for one neighboring latent block of said one or more neighboring latent blocks (¶ 145; Therefore, the intra prediction uses reconstructed neighboring samples of a frame).
However, Solovyev does not explicitly teach only a part of a latent block corresponding to said one neighboring latent block is used to obtain said predicted latent block for said block.
In the same field of endeavor, Jiang teaches teach only a part of a latent block corresponding to said one neighboring latent block is used to obtain said predicted latent block for said block (¶ 42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Solovyev in view of Jiang. The advantage is improved video compression.
Regarding claim 16, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 10 are applicable for claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 10 are applicable for claim 18.
Regarding claim 28, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 10 are applicable for claim 28.
Regarding claim 32, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 10 are applicable for claim 32.
Regarding claim 33, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 10 are applicable for claim 33.
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
Prosecution Insights