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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because they recite identical subject matter. One of the redundant claims should be cancelled or amended to avoid this duplication.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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.
Claims 1-10, 21,22, 25, 26 and 28 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, this claim recites the limitation phrase “by multiplying the coefficients for a respective channel” which lacks clear antecedent basis. It is unclear whether “the coefficients” refers to the coefficients decoded from the third unit of information, to the coefficients decoded from the fourth, or some combination thereof. unit of information. Because the claims recites multiple distinct sets of coefficients, the scope of “producing the tensor on a channel-wise basis” is uncertain.
Regarding claim 6, the term “as close to 1:1 as possible” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “as close to 1:1 as possible” 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.
Regarding claim 7, the term “as close to 2:1 as possible” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “as close to 2:1 as possible” 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
Regarding claims 21 and 22, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1. These claims recite analogous subject matter to perform the same or equivalent functionality as the method of claim 1. Because claims 21 and 22 rely on the same indefinite limitations described in the rejection of claim 1, the scope of these claims likewise cannot be determined with reasonable certainty by a person of ordinary skill in the art, rendering them indefinite.
Regarding claims 2-5, 8-10, 25, 26 and 28 , these claims are, either directly or indirectly, dependent from a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1, 12(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Claims 2-10, 25, 26 and 28 do not remedy this deficiency and therefore inherit the rejection of the parent claim.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 11, 12, 15, 21-25 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakayama et al. (JP2015129785A, mapped to a copy of English Translation provided cited in PTO-892 ), hereinafter referred to as Wakayama, in view of Racape et al. (US 2023/0252273 Al), hereinafter referred to as Racape.
Regarding claim 1, Wakayama discloses a method of decoding a tensor from a bitstream, the method comprising:
the first unit of information corresponding to an average tensor value across channels of the tensor (¶[0033] discloses a centering unit 1141 that calculates the sample average E[Am] of the input tensor A m series and outputs cAm and sample mean E[A m]. The sample average E[A m] is an average of tensors A m for each of a plurality of sub blocks);
decoding a second unit of information from the bitstream, the second unit of information corresponding to components of a decomposition of the tensor (¶¶[0034], [0035] and [0045] disclose that a tensor is decomposed, from a bitstream, into components comprising a core tensor (Bm) and a basic group (U). These components are encoded as separate bitstreams and decoded.);
the third unit of information corresponding to coefficients relating the first unit of information of the tensor (¶¶[0047] and [0048] disclose decoding eigensignal Skmn’ from the bitstream which are coefficients applied during reconstruction to the decoded tensor that includes the sample average E[A m] );
the fourth unit of information corresponding to coefficients relating the second unit of information of the tensor (¶¶[0035], [0045] and [0046] disclose decoding core tensor coefficients (Bm) and basis matrices (U) which together parameterize the tensor decomposition and are multiplied to reconstruct the centered tensor ); and
producing the tensor on a channel-wise basis by multiplying the coefficients for a respective channel with the average tensor value and the components of the decomposition of the tensor with coefficients associated with the decomposition of the tensor (¶¶[0046]-[0048] disclose reconstruct a tensor by multiplying decoded decomposition coefficients ( core tensor (Bm) and a basic matrices (U) , adding the decoded average tensor E[Am] and then applying decoded channel-specific eigensignal Skmn to produce a multi-channel output).
Wakayama does not explicitly disclose decoding a first, second, third and fourth units of information from the bitstream.
However, Racape from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses decoding a first, second, third and fourth units of information from the bitstream (¶[0066] discloses that the information required for decoding an NNR Unit can be signaled as part of the bitstream ( or provided separately), implying that each unit carries a specific subset information; and ¶[0068] further clarifies that the bitstream syntax defines different units types).
Racape teaches decoding from a bitstream in the form of distinct units of information, while reference B teaches the specific tensor data ( average, decomposition components, and coefficients) conveyed by such units.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Wakayama to add the teachings of Racape as above, in order to specify NNR tensor types in case of tensor decomposition. (Racape, [0069]).
Regarding claim 2, Wakayama and Racape disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Wakayama does not explicitly disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first, second, third, and fourth units of information are independently decodable with respect to at least one of the other units of information and each unit of information is arranged in a plurality of two-dimensional arrays of samples.
However, Racape from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first, second, third, and fourth units of information are independently decodable with respect to at least one of the other units of information and each unit of information is arranged in a plurality of two-dimensional arrays of samples (¶[0045] discloses that once an original tensor has been decomposed in several tensors, the several resulting tensors can be encoded and decoded separately).
The motivation for combining Wakayama and Racape has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 5, Wakayama and Racape disclose all the limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Wakayama does not explicitly disclose the method according to claim 2, wherein the method is applied to a plurality of tensors, each of the first, second, third, and fourth units of information containing respective information for the each of the plurality of tensors.
However, Racape from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the method is applied to a plurality of tensors, each of the first, second, third, and fourth units of information containing respective information for the each of the plurality of tensors. (¶[0054] discloses that the process can be iterated for several input tensors, for instance for all tensors in the model to quantize and/or encode).
The motivation for combining Wakayama and Racape has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 25, Wakayama and Racape disclose all the limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Wakayama does not explicitly disclose the method according to claim 2, wherein all of the first, second, third and fourth units of information are independently decodable with respect to one another.
However, Racape from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein all of the first, second, third and fourth units of information are independently decodable with respect to one another. (¶[0045] discloses that once an original tensor has been decomposed in several tensors, the several resulting tensors can be encoded and decoded separately).
The motivation for combining Wakayama and Racape has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claims 11, 12, 15 and 27, these claims are rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of decoding of claims 1, 2, 5 and 25 since they claim analogous subject matter in the form of a method of encoding for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
The Examiner notes that it is well-known in the art that video compression involves a complementary pair of systems: a encoder and a decoder. The encoder converts the source data into a compressed form, occupying a reduced number of bits prior to transmission or storage, while the decoder converts the compressed form back into a representation of the original video data by performing a reciprocal process to that of the encoder, decoding the encoded video data from the bitstream.
Regarding claims 21 and 23, these claims are rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claim 1, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Furthermore, Racape discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium which stores a program for executing a method of coding a tensor into a bitstream. (¶0021])
Regarding claims 22, 24, 28 and 29 , these claims are rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claims 1and 2, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of a decoder/encoder for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakayama, in view of Racape, and further, in view of Chang (US20210297704A1), hereinafter referred to as Chang
Regarding claim 8, Wakayama and Racape disclose all the limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Wakayama does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 2, wherein each of the first, second, third and fourth units of information is arranged as a subpicture for Versatile Video Coding.
However, Chang from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 2, wherein each of the first, second, third and fourth units of information is arranged as a subpicture for Versatile Video Coding (¶¶[0023]-[0025]).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Wakayama and Racape to add the teachings of Chang as above. Chang teaches that VVC subpictures are rectangular regions made of one or more slices, and each subpicture can be decoded as an independent picture. Mapping each unit of information ( average tensor, decomposition components, and coefficients) into its own subpicture ensures that the units are spatially partitioned and independently decodable.(Chang, [0023]-[0025]).
Regarding claim 9, Wakayama, Racape and Chang disclose all the limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Wakayama does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 2, wherein each of the first, second, third and fourth units of information is arranged as a tile for Versatile Video Coding or High Efficiency Video Coding..
However, Chang from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 2, wherein each of the first, second, third and fourth units of information is arranged as a tile for Versatile Video Coding or High Efficiency Video Coding (¶¶[0049]-[0051]).
The motivation for combining Wakayama, Racape and Chang has been discussed in connection with claim 8, above.
Regarding claim 10, Wakayama, Racape and Chang disclose all the limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Wakayama does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 2, wherein each of the first, second, third and fourth units of information is arranged as a slice for Versatile Video Coding or High Efficiency Video Coding.
However, Chang from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 2, wherein each of the first, second, third and fourth units of information is arranged as a slice for Versatile Video Coding or High Efficiency Video Coding. (¶¶[0039] and [0051]).
The motivation for combining Wakayama, Racape and Chang has been discussed in connection with claim 8, above.
Regarding claims 18-20, these claims are rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of decoding of claims 8-10 since they claim analogous subject matter in the form of a method of encoding for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
The Examiner notes that it is well-known in the art that video compression involves a complementary pair of systems: a encoder and a decoder. The encoder converts the source data into a compressed form, occupying a reduced number of bits prior to transmission or storage, while the decoder converts the compressed form back into a representation of the original video data by performing a reciprocal process to that of the encoder, decoding the encoded video data from the bitstream.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for additional references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM (EST).
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on (571)272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FABIO S LIMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486