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 filed 08/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Wang does not disclose and wherein based on a number of the at least one input picture being equal to 1, a value of a picture filtering flag for a corresponding input picture is inferred to be equal to 1.
Examiner disagrees Wang teaches While Wang is silent about the following, it would be obvious given Wang teaches and wherein based on a number of the at least one input picture being equal to 1, a value of a picture filtering flag for a corresponding input picture is inferred to be equal to 1 (0298-0301 with focus on how the variables are derived in 0301 the first if/else statement has if num input =1 the num output =1 else it goes through a loop using nnpfc_input_pic_output_flag for each input pic and increases the num output for each flag triggered, so by num output = 1 when there is only 1 input which would cause a flag trigger it is effectively inferring that the flag would have been triggered (i.e. equal to 1))
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 the result that the flag would have signalled without having to go through more process steps.
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) 14-15, 18-19, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. US 2025/0342613
Wang discloses:
14. A method for decoding an image (0314) comprising: obtaining a neural-network post-filter characteristics (NNPFC) supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message, wherein the NNPFC SEI message includes one or more picture filtering flags corresponding to at least one input picture and purpose information indicating a purpose of a post-filter (0290-0301); and determining whether a corresponding output picture for each input picture is generated by the post-filter based on a picture filtering flag corresponding to the input picture included in the one or more picture filtering flags, wherein a value of the picture filtering flag equal to 1 indicates that the post-filter generates the corresponding output picture for the input picture, and the value equal to 0 indicates that the post-filter does not generate the corresponding output picture for the input picture (0298-9); and obtaining an output picture generated by the post-filter corresponding to one of the at least one input picture based on the determination, wherein at least one of the one or more picture filtering flags has a value of 1 based on there being more than one input picture and the purpose information not being related to picture rate upsampling (0281; 0290-0301)
While Wang is silent about the following, it would be obvious given Wang teaches and wherein based on a number of the at least one input picture being equal to 1, a value of a picture filtering flag for a corresponding input picture is inferred to be equal to 1 (0298-0301 with focus on how the variables are derived in 0301 the first if/else statement has if num input =1 the num output =1 else it goes through a loop using nnpfc_input_pic_output_flag for each input pic and increases the num output for each flag triggered, so by num output = 1 when there is only 1 input which would cause a flag trigger it is effectively inferring that the flag would have been triggered (i.e. equal to 1))
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 the result that the flag would have signalled without having to go through more process steps.
15. and 19. The method of claim 14, wherein a number of the at least one input picture and a number of the one or more picture filtering flags are determined based on number information included in the NNPFC SEI message (0290-0301).
23. and under similar rationale 18. A method of transmitting a bitstream, wherein the method comprising: obtaining the bitstream, wherein the bitstream is generated based on generating a neural- network post-filter characteristics (NNPFC) supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message, and encoding image information including the NNPFC SEI message (Fig. 5; table 20 by 0274; 0281; 0290-0301); and transmitting the bitstream, wherein the NNPFC SEI message includes one or more picture filtering flags corresponding to at least one input picture and purpose information indicating a purpose of a post- filter, wherein a picture filtering flag is for determining whether a corresponding output picture for each input picture is generated by the post-filter, wherein a value of the picture filtering flag equal to 1 indicates that the post-filter generates the corresponding output picture for the input picture, and the value equal to 0 indicates that the post-filter does not generate the corresponding output picture for the input pictures, wherein at least one of the one or more picture filtering flags has a value of 1 based on there being more than one input picture and the purpose information not being related to picture rate upsampling, (Fig. 5; tables 20 by 0274 and 0292 value 1 shows visual quality improvement without upsampling and 2-4 show without picture rate upsampling; 0281; 0290-0301)
While Wang is silent about the following, it would be obvious given Wang teaches and wherein based on a number of the at least one input picture being equal to 1, a value of a picture filtering flag for a corresponding input picture is inferred to be equal to 1 (0298-0301 with focus on how the variables are derived in 0301 the first if/else statement has if num input =1 the num output =1 else it goes through a loop using nnpfc_input_pic_output_flag for each input pic and increases the num output for each flag triggered, so by num output = 1 when there is only 1 input which would cause a flag trigger it is effectively inferring that the flag would have been triggered (i.e. equal to 1))
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 the result that the flag would have signalled without having to go through more process steps.
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 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 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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at (571) 272-3982. 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
Prosecution Insights