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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claims of the present application claiming priority and benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) to Korean Patent Applications KR10-2024-0053699 (filed 04/22/2024), KR10-2024-0021365 (filed 02/14/2024), and KR10-2023-0135463 (filed 10/11/2023).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (“IDS”) filed on 10/11/2024 was reviewed and the listed references were noted.
Drawings
The 28-page drawings filed on 01/13/2025 have been considered and placed in the file.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to, due to an improper dependency. Claim 14 should depend from claim 12, not claim 8. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets claim 14 to depend from claim 12.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word "means" (or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word "means" (or "step for") are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word "means" (or "step for") are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an image decoding unit to …”, “an inverse format conversion unit to …”, and “a feature map restoration unit to …” in claim 1; “a compression parameter adaptation unit …” and “a channel adaptation unit …” in claim 4; “an inverse quantization unit to …” and “a channel rearrangement unit to …” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-5, 8, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Consider claim 4, the claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. It is unclear whether the “compression adaptation unit” is within the “compression parameter-dependent restoration unit” or not. Both units perform essentially the same function, and are claimed to be together, but figure 14 shows these units as separate entities. Additionally, claims 5, 8, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) due to their recited dependency on claim 4.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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 4-5, 8, 10, and 14 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 4 is unclear as to whether the “compression adaptation unit” is different from the “compression parameter-dependent restoration unit”, as they perform essentially the same function. Additionally, claims 5, 8, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their recited dependency on claim 4.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (US 2023/0336738 A1), in view of Sim et al. (US 2024/0244236 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ding teaches, “A device for decoding a feature map, comprising: an image decoding unit to decode an image from a bitstream;” (Ding, Abstract discloses, “In some examples, processing circuitry decodes, from a coded bitstream that carries a compressed image …”) “an inverse format conversion unit to restore a feature map latent representation by converting a formation of a decoded image;” (Ding, Para. [0060] discloses; “The main decoder network (115) can decode the quantized latent ŷ to generate the reconstructed image x.”) “(Ding, Abstract discloses; “The multi-rate compression domain computer vision task decoder generates a computer vision task result according to the compressed image in the coded bitstream and the value of the parameter.”) Ding does not explicitly teach, “and a feature map restoration unit to restore a multi-layer feature map from the feature map latent representation” and “multi-layer”. Since Ding does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Sim, in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Sim teaches, “and a feature map restoration unit to restore a multi-layer feature map from the feature map latent representation,” (Sim, Para. [0053] discloses; “An image decoding device may decode a received bitstream with one or a plurality of pyramid feature maps and reduce compression damage of a feature map through a pyramid feature map image quality improvement network and may finally reconstruct a pyramid feature map” Examiner pyramid feature map to be a multi-layer feature map, as disclosed by Sim in Para. [0040]).
Ding and Sim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of decoding images using neural networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ding to incorporate the teachings of Sim in order to restore a multi-layer feature map from the latent representations. One would have been motivated to combine the previously described device of Ding with the teachings of Sim to ensure the device would be able to decode a multi-layer feature map based on a network parameter, and thus improve output resolution. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Ding and Sim to obtain the above specified limitations.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ding and Sim teaches, “The device of claim 1, wherein the feature map restoration unit comprises at least one of a compression parameter-dependent restoration unit, that is learned based on a compression parameter available for the image decoding unit, or a compression parameter-independent restoration unit, that is learned without considering the compression parameter available for the image decoding unit.” (Ding, Abstract discloses; “A value change of the parameter adjusts a compression rate of the compressed image” Examiner interprets this disclosure to show a compression parameter-dependent restoration unit that is learned based on a compression parameter.)
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Ding and Sim teach, “A device for encoding a feature map, comprising: a feature map latent extraction unit to extract a feature map latent representation from a multi-layer feature map;” (Ding, Para. [0057] discloses; “Referring to FIG. 1, the main encoder network (111) can generate a latent or a latent representation y from the input image x (e.g., an image to be compressed or encoded).” and Sim, Para. [0040] discloses; “A feature map extractor may receive an image to output a feature map of one or a plurality of feature pyramid networks. In other words, a feature map extractor may extract a feature map from an input image based on a feature pyramid network structure. A feature pyramid network represents a network which generates a plurality of feature maps with a multi-layer structure and a feature map generated from a feature pyramid network may have a different resolution or scale per each layer.”) “a format conversion unit to convert a format of the feature map latent representation;” (Ding, Para. [0058] discloses; “The latent representation y can be quantized using the quantizer (112) to generate a quantized latent ŷ.” Examiner interprets a quantized latent to be a converted format.) “and an image decoding unit to generate bitstream by encoding a format-converted image,” (Ding, Para. [0116] discloses, “The image compression encoder (1420) can compress an input image based on the tensor (1431) to generate a coded bitstream that carries a compressed image corresponding to the input image.”) “wherein the feature map latent representation extraction unit extracts the feature map latent representation based on a learned neural network parameter.” (Sim, Para. [0003] discloses; “Accordingly, in order to have hardiness to a size, a feature pyramid network (FPN) structure acts as a feature extractor of a network to output a feature map of various resolutions.” and Ding, Abstract discloses; “The compressed image is generated by a neural network based encoder based on the parameter.” It would be obvious to use the parameter of Ding with the extraction process of Sim.) The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Ding and Sim references in the rejection of claim 1, apply to claim 11 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the device recited in claim 11 is met by Ding and Sim.
Claim 15 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the device recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding device claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Ding and Sim references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Ding et al., in view of Sim et al., in further view of Wooden et al. (US 2018/0302622).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ding and Sim does not explicitly teach, “The device of claim 2, wherein the compression parameter represents a quantization parameter.” Since the combination of Ding and Sim does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Wooden in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Wooden teaches, “The device of claim 2, wherein the compression parameter represents a quantization parameter.” (Wooden, Para. [0062] discloses; “As an example, the range-based compression parameters can be quantization parameters.”)
Ding, Sim, and Wooden are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of decoding images using compression. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Ding and Sim to incorporate the teachings of Wooden in order to have the compression parameter represent a quantization parameter. One would have been motivated to combine the previously described device of Ding and Sim with the teachings of Wooden to incorporate compression and quantization into one parameter. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Ding, Sim, and Wooden to obtain the above specified limitations.
Claims 4, 8, 10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Ding et al., in view of Sim et al., in further view of Do et al. (KR 20220073666 A).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ding and Sim teaches, “The device of claim 2, wherein the compression parameter-dependent restoration unit comprises: a compression parameter adaptation unit learned by the compression parameters;” (Ding, Abstract discloses; “A value change of the parameter adjusts a compression rate of the compressed image” Examiner interprets this disclosure to show a unit that is learned based on a compression parameter.) The combination of Ding and Sim does not explicitly teach, “a channel adaption unit adjusting a number of channels input to the compression parameter adaptation unit.” Since the combination of Ding and Sim does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on Do in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Do teaches, “and a channel adaption unit adjusting a number of channels input to the compression parameter adaptation unit.” (Do discloses; “The feature map reorderer 1310 may perform at least one of 1) spatial rearrangement of channels, 2) temporal rearrangement of channels, and 3) spatiotemporal rearrangement of channels.” It would be obvious to combine this reordering with the unit of Ding and make the design choice of making it an input.)
Ding, Sim, and Do are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of processing images with an encoder and decoder. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Ding and Sim to incorporate the teachings of Do in order to adapt the compression based on the size of the feature map and the number of channels. One would have been motivated to combine the previously described device of Ding and Sim with the teachings of Do to incorporate a parameter and number of channels into the compression. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Ding, Sim, and Do to obtain the above specified limitations.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Ding, Sim, and Do teaches, “The device of claim 4, wherein the inverse format conversion unit comprises: an inverse quantization unit to perform inverse quantization on the decoded image;” (Do discloses; “The feature map inverse quantizer 1320 may perform inverse quantization on the rearranged feature map to generate an inverse quantized feature map”) “and a channel rearrangement unit to perform a channel rearrangement for an inverse-quantized image.” (Do discloses; “The feature map reorderer 1310 may perform at least one of 1) spatial rearrangement of channels, 2) temporal rearrangement of channels, and 3) spatiotemporal rearrangement of channels.” It would be obvious to perform this rearrangement on the inverse-quantized image.) The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Ding, Sim and Do references in the rejection of claim 4, apply to claim 8 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the device recited in claim 8 is met by Ding, Sim, and Do.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Ding, Sim, and Do teaches, “The device of claim 8, wherein the channel rearrangement represents restoration of channels that are arranged in spatial, temporal or spatiotemporal into an original form.” (Do discloses; “The feature map reorderer 1310 may perform at least one of 1) spatial rearrangement of channels, 2) temporal rearrangement of channels, and 3) spatiotemporal rearrangement of channels.”) The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Ding, Sim and Do references in the rejection of claim 4, apply to claim 10 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the device recited in claim 10 is met by Ding, Sim, and Do.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Ding, Sim, and Do teaches, “The device of claim 11, wherein the device comprises: a channel arrangement unit for performing channel conversion for the feature map latent representation;” (Do discloses; “The feature map arranger 1230 may perform at least one of 1) spatial arrangement of channels, 2) temporal arrangement of channels, and 3) spatiotemporal arrangement of channels.”) “and a quantization unit to perform a quantization on a channel converted image.” (Ding, Para. [0058] discloses; “The latent representation y can be quantized using the quantizer (112) to generate a quantized latent ŷ.” It would be obvious to combine the channel arrangement unit of Do with the quantization unit of Ding to perform quantization on the channel converted image of Do.) The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Ding, Sim and Do references in the rejection of claim 4, apply to claim 12 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the device recited in claim 12 is met by Ding, Sim, and Do.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Ding, Sim, and Do teaches, “The device of claim 8, wherein the channel arrangement represents arranging channels of the feature map latent representation in a spatial, temporal or spatiotemporal.” (Do discloses; “The feature map arranger 1230 may perform at least one of 1) spatial arrangement of channels, 2) temporal arrangement of channels, and 3) spatiotemporal arrangement of channels.”) The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Ding, Sim and Do references in the rejection of claim 4, apply to claim 14 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the device recited in claim 14 is met by Ding, Sim, and Do.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Ding et al., in view of Sim et al., in further view of Do, and still in view of Kim et al. (10,387,754 B1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ding, Sim, and Do teaches, “generated by combining channels of the feature map latent representation and the compression parameters” (Do discloses; “The feature map reorderer 1310 may perform at least one of 1) spatial rearrangement of channels, 2) temporal rearrangement of channels, and 3) spatiotemporal rearrangement of channels.” and Ding, Abstract discloses; “A value change of the parameter adjusts a compression rate of the compressed image” It would be obvious to combine the channels of Do and the compression parameter of Ding.) The combination of Ding, Sim, and Do does not explicitly teach, “The device of claim 4, wherein the channel adaption unit is configured to convert a combined image … according to a number of channels of the feature map latent representation.” Since the combination of Ding, Sim, and Do does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Kim in an analogous filed of endeavor. Specifically, Kim teaches, “The device of claim 4, wherein the channel adaption unit is configured to convert a combined image … according to a number of channels of the feature map latent representation.” (Kim, Column 3, Lines 61-67 discloses; “As one example, at the step of (b), the learning device, if the number of channels of the integrated feature map is not a multiple of H1, instructs the first reshaping layer to add at least one first dummy channel to the integrated feature map such that the number of channels of the integrated feature map including the at least one first dummy channel is a multiple of H1” Examiner interprets this disclosure to show converting the combined image of Ding and Do based on a number of channels. Examiner interprets “convert” to be changing the number of channels.)
Ding, Sim, Do, and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of processing images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Ding, Sim, and Do to incorporate the teachings of Kim in order to convert the number of channels matching the combined image. One would have been motivated to combine the previously described device of Ding, Sim and Do with the teachings of Kim to ensure that the combined image can be processed by matching the channels. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Ding, Sim, Do, and Kim to obtain the above specified limitations.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Ding et al., in view of Sim et al., in further view of Petruzzelli et al. (US 2024/0095778 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ding and Sim teaches, “including an entropy encoding unit and an entropy decoding unit which are learnable by error back propagation” (Ding, Para. [0056] discloses; “The first sub-NN (151) can include a plurality of components (or modules), such as a main encoder neural network (or a main encoder network) (111), a quantizer (112), an entropy encoder (113), an entropy decoder (114), and a main decoder neural network (or a main encoder network) (115).” and Sim, Para. [0066] discloses; “A loss function of a neural network may be a mean square error or a cross entropy error.”) The combination of Ding and Sim does not explicitly teach, “The device of claim 1, wherein the feature map restoration unit is firstly learned based on compression noise of a first internal codec” Since the combination of Ding and Sim does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Petruzzelli in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Petruzzelli teaches, “The device of claim 1, wherein the feature map restoration unit is firstly learned based on compression noise of a first internal codec” (Petruzzelli, Para. [0065] discloses; “The distortion may further involve applying image compression noise to the training image frame to mimic noise resulting from compression performed by a video codec” It would be obvious to combine this with the feature map restoration unit of Sim in claim 1.)
Ding, Sim, and Petruzzelli are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of processing images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Ding and Sim to incorporate the teachings of Petruzzelli in order to train the unit on compression noise from a codec. One would have been motivated to combine the previously described device of Ding and Sim with the teachings of Petruzzelli to ensure the device knows how to reduce noise from compression performed by the codec. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Ding, Sim, and Petruzzelli to obtain the above specified limitations.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ding, Sim, and Petruzzelli teaches, “The device of claim 6, wherein a neural network parameter, that is firstly learned, is fine-tuned based on compression noise of a second codec” (Petruzzelli, Para. [0065] discloses; “The distortion may further involve applying image compression noise to the training image frame to mimic noise resulting from compression performed by a video codec” It would be obvious to combine this with the neural network parameter of Ding in claim 1.) “including an image encoding unit and an image decoding unit which are not learnable by error back propagation” (Ding, Para. [0011] discloses, “In some examples, the neural network based encoder is based on an encoder model in a neural image compression (NIC) framework, and the multi-rate compression domain computer vision task decoder is based on a decoder model in the NIC framework, the NIC framework is trained end-to-end”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Ding, Sim and Petruzzelli references in the rejection of claim 6, apply to claim 7 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the device recited in claim 7 is met by Ding, Sim, and Petruzzelli.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Ding et al., in view of Sim et al., in further view of Petruzzelli, and still in view of Jung et al. (WO 2013133648 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ding, Sim, and Petruzzelli, does not explicitly teach, “The device of claim 7, wherein the inverse quantization is performed based on a maximum value and a minimum value among feature values, and wherein information representing the maximum value and the minimum value is explicitly decoded from the bitstream.” Since the combination of Ding, Sim, and Petruzzelli does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Jung in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Jung teaches, “The device of claim 7, wherein the inverse quantization is performed based on a maximum value and a minimum value among feature values, and wherein information representing the maximum value and the minimum value is explicitly decoded from the bitstream.” (Jung discloses; “Acquire the maximum value, minimum value, and residual accuracy transmitted from the bitstream (S800), and dequantize using the maximum, minimum, and residual accuracy through the residual inverse quantizer 610 in the warp inverse transformer 600.”)
Ding, Sim, Petruzzelli, and Jung are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of processing images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Ding, Sim, and Petruzzelli to incorporate the teachings of Jung in order to perform inverse quantization based on the maximum and minimum values acquired from the bitstream. One would have been motivated to combine the previously described device of Ding, Sim, and Petruzzelli with the teachings of Jung to ensure that all of the feature values are quantized. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Ding, Sim, Petruzzelli, and Jung to obtain the above specified limitations.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Ding et al., in view of Sim et al., in further view of Do, and still in view of Jung et al. (WO 2013133648 A1)
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Ding, Sim, and Do does not explicitly teach, “The device of claim 12, wherein the quantization is performed based on a maximum value and a minimum value among feature values, and wherein information representing the maximum value and the minimum value is explicitly signaled via the bitstream.” Since the combination of Ding, Sim, and Do does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Jung in an analogous filed of endeavor. Specifically, Jung teaches, “The device of claim 12, wherein the quantization is performed based on a maximum value and a minimum value among feature values, and wherein information representing the maximum value and the minimum value is explicitly signaled via the bitstream. “ (Jung, discloses; “The maximum (warp_residual_max) and minimum (warp_residual_min) values of the warp maps are the maximum and minimum values of the residuals generated during the linear prediction and quantization of the warp map by the warp transform. The maximum, minimum, and residual accuracy (warp_residual_prec) of the warp map is processed, encoded, and transmitted through the bitstream of the warp converter 300”)
Ding, Sim, Do, and Jung are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of processing images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Ding, Sim, and Do to incorporate the teachings of Jung in order to perform image quantization based on the maximum and minimum values, and signal the values via a bitstream. One would have been motivated to combine the previously described device of Ding, Sim, and Do with the teachings of Jung to ensure that all of the feature values are quantized. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Ding, Sim, Do, and Jung to obtain the above specified limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN M. OAKES whose telephone number is (571)272-9379. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571) 272-3382. 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.
/JUSTIN M OAKES/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/Siamak Harandi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit
Prosecution Insights