CTNF 18/855,251 CTNF 79747 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Notice to Applicants This communication is in response to the Application filed on 10/8/2024. Claims 1-9 are pending. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 1-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 19/037,634. Claim 1 is used as an example in the table below showing the mapping of similarity. Claims 2-9 are mapped similarly. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Present US Application No. 18/855,251 Co-pending US Application No., 19/037,634 (Amended claims-most recent) [Claim 1] An image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising: 1. An image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising: obtaining, from an NNPFC (neural-network post-filter characteristics) SEI (supplemental enhancement information) message, first information specifying whether at least one output picture corresponding to at least one input picture is generated; and obtaining, from a neural-network post-filter characteristics (NNPFC) supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message, first information specifying whether an output picture corresponding to an input picture is generated by a neural-network post-filter (NNPF); and obtaining, from an NNPFA (neural-network post-filter activation) SEI message, second information specifying whether the generated output picture is output, obtaining, from a neural-network post-filter activation (NNPFA) SEI message, second information specifying whether the generated output picture is output, wherein a value of the second information is determined based on at least one of whether a purpose of an NNPF (neural-network post-filter) is picture rate upsampling or whether a number of input pictures is multiple. wherein based on a purpose of the NNPF not being picture rate upsampling, the second information is constrained to have a first value specifying that the generated output picture is output, and [Claim 2] The image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the value of the second information is determined to be a first value specifying that the generated output picture is output based on the purpose of the NNPF being not picture rate upsampling. wherein whether the purpose of the NNPF is the picture rate upsampling is determined based on third information obtained from the NNPFC SET message. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim is drawn to a “computer-readable recording medium” comprising stored data. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification concludes that the claim as a whole covers a transitory signal, which does not fall within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter (In re Nuijten). Therefore, claim 8 does not fall within a statutory category. The Examiner recommends amending claim 8 to include "non-transitory computer-readable medium" to overcome the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2025/0218051 to Wang . With regard to claim 1 Wang discloses an image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus ( Fig. 7 ), the image decoding method comprising: obtaining, from an NNPFC (neural-network post-filter characteristics) SEI (supplemental enhancement information) message, first information (i.e., motion information ) specifying whether at least one output picture corresponding to at least one input picture is generated ( SEI messages, paragraphs [0054, 0057], nnpfc SEI message, paragraph [0175], decoder 4500 in Fig. 7 paragraphs [0203-0204], and paragraphs [0215-0220] ); and obtaining, from an NNPFA (neural-network post-filter activation) SEI message, second information ( i.e., direction indicator ) specifying whether the generated output picture is output ( Table 13, nnpfc_id contains identifying number that maybe used to identify a post-processing filter, paragraphs [0060, 0094-0095, 0121]] ), wherein a value of the second information is determined based on at least one of whether a purpose of an NNPF (neural-network post-filter) is picture rate upsampling, or whether a number of input pictures is multiple ( i.e., reference index ) obtained from the NNPFC SET message ( Table 20, paragraph [0063] on page 5; paragraphs [0098, 0101, 0103, 0108, 0154], on bottom of page 16 see Table 20 ). With regard to claim 2 Wang discloses wherein the value of the second information is determined to be a first value specifying that the generated output picture is output based on the purpose of the NNPF being not picture rate upsampling (paragraphs [0102, 0108, 0158, 0165, 0220, 0228]). With regard to claim 3 Wang discloses wherein the value of the second information is determined to be the first value further based on a number of pictures existing in an output tensor while having a corresponding input picture being equal to a number of second information in the NNPFA SEI message (Table 24, page 11, paragraphs [0088]). With regard to claim 4 Wang discloses wherein the value of the second information is determined to be the first value further based on the number of input pictures being multiple (paragraphs [0178, 0187, 0189-0190]). With regard to claim 5 Wang discloses wherein the value of the second information is determined to be a first value specifying that the generated output picture is output based on the number of input picture being one and a number of second information in the NNPFA SEI message being one (paragraphs [0094-0095, 0121]). With regard to claim 6 Wang discloses wherein the second information is not obtained from the NNPFA SEI message based on the number of input pictures being one (paragraph [0071] and paragraph [0147] where bitrate may be reduced of video from the input to the output to produce a coded representation; paragraph [0187] where only motion information is determined; paragraphs [0189-0190] where motion estimation unit 4404 may search reference pictures of list 0 or list 1). With regard to claims 7-9, claims 7-9 are is rejected same as claim 1 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claims 7-9. Wang discloses a video encoder 4400 in Fig. 6 and it’s respective sections in the specification, and transmitting bitstream at Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0147 and 0178] and all of the other limitations similar to claim 1 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2025/0337962 discloses a solution for video processing. A method for video processing is proposed. The method includes: determining, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, a neural-network post-filter (NNPF) is activated for a set of pictures; apply the NNPF to one or more pictures in the set of pictures according to an order; and performing the conversion based on the NNPF. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEFALI D. GORADIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM, Friday 8AM-12PM. 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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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. SHEFALI D. GORADIA Primary Patent Examiner Art Unit 2676 /SHEFALI D GORADIA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/855,251 Page 2 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/855,251 Page 3 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/855,251 Page 4 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/855,251 Page 5 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/855,251 Page 6 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/855,251 Page 7 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/855,251 Page 8 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/855,251 Page 9 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/855,251 Page 10 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/855,251 Page 11 Art Unit: 2676
Prosecution Insights