DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JIAHAO LI ET AL: "Deep Contextual Video Compression", ARXIV.ORG, CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY, 201 OLIN LIBRARY CORNELL UNIVERSITY ITHACA, NY 14853, 30 September 2021 (hereinafter Jaihao)
HAOJIE LIU ET AL: "Neural Video Coding using Multiscale Motion Compensation and Spatiotemporal Context Model", ARXIV.ORG, CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY, 201 OLIN LIBRARY CORNELL UNIVERSITY ITHACA, NY 14853, 9 July 2020 (hereinafter Haojie),
US 20200027247 A1 (Fig.1 & 2)
Claim Objections (Informalities in the Claim)
Claim(s) 124-125 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims referenced claim 41, a cancelled claim., but based on “the transformation” it should be dependent upon claim 123. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-29, 36-37, 120-125 are allowed.
Claim Objection (Allowable Subject Matter)
Claims 32 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.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim prior art rejection have been fully considered. Rejection of claims 26, 36 and 32 and their dependent claims have been withdrawn. But applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for rejections of claims 30, 31 and 33 following reason.
Re: Prior art rejection of claims 30, 31, 33
Jaihao teaches input frames and reference frame (reference frames) are inputted to the neural network encoding (see Fig.2 and section 3.1) to generate latent representation/feature , but does not concatenate the input. However, Haojie teaches that the input of a feature generation system in which the current frame and reference from are concatenated to streamline the process (page 6 left column bottom para). Therefore, combining the teaching of Haojie into Jaihao is within the reach of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 30, 31, 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaihao in view of Haojie.
Regarding Claim 30: Jaihao teaches a method for lossy video encoding, transmission and decoding, the method comprising the steps of: receiving a plurality of frames of a video at a first computer system [(Fig.2 and section 3.1; input frame; t means getting plural at different time)] : encoding the video subset using a first trained neural network to produce a latent representation [(Contextual encoder create latent yt)] : performing a quantization process on the latent representation to produce a quantized latent: [(
PNG
media_image1.png
26
28
media_image1.png
Greyscale
page 4 last para; Fig.4 )] transmitting the quantized latent to a second computer system [(Bitstream)] : and decoding the quantized latent using a second trained neural network to produce an output video subset, wherein the output video subset is an approximation of the video subset.[[(Fig.2 at Dec; approximation because of error/prediction sec 3.1 last para)]
Jaihao does not explicitly show concatenating at least two frames of the plurality of frames to obtain a video subset:
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Haojie teaches concatenating at least two frames of the plurality of frames to obtain a video subset: [(page 6 left column bottom para)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Jaihao additionally teaches with regards to claim 31. The method of claim 30, further comprising the steps of: encoding the latent representation using a third trained neural network to produce a hyper-latent representation:[(Fig.4 HPE)] performing a quantization process on the hyper-latent representation to produce a quantized hyper-latent: :[(Fig.4 Q)] transmitting the quantized hyper-latent to the second computer system: :[(Fig.4)] and decoding the quantized hyper-latent using a fourth trained neural network: :[(Fig.4 HPD)] wherein the output of the fourth trained neural network is used during the decoding of the quantized latent. :[(Fig.4 AD)]
Jaihao in view of Haojie additionally teaches with regards to claim 33. The method of any one of claim 30, wherein at least one of the first trained neural network and the second trained neural network comprises a convolution operation performed in at least three dimensions. [(Jaihao Fig.8 Conv; Haojie page 8 right column bottom para, 1x1x1 convolutions )]
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426