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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/14/25 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/17/24. These drawings are acceptable.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 7 corresponding to claim(s) 1-2 and 9-20 in the reply filed on 1/23/26 is acknowledged.
Claim(s) 3-8 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected embodiment, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “signalled” is misspelled. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-13 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2024/0064296).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a method for video processing (see fig. 17), comprising: applying a neural network (NN) filter (see Cov in fig. 17) to an unfiltered sample of a video unit (see input YUV in fig. 17) to generate a filtered sample (see RB in fig. 17), wherein the NN filter includes an NN filter model (see Cov in fig. 17) shared by both a luma component and a chroma component corresponding to the video unit (see YUV in fig. 17); and performing a conversion between a video media file and a bitstream based on the filtered sample (see YUV input and output in fig. 17).
Regarding claim 2, Chen further discloses wherein an output of the NN filter model depends on coding information (see fig. 6), and wherein the coding information is a syntax element included in the bitstream, or the coding information is derived information (see filter width and height derived from block size in fig. 6).
Regarding claim 9, Chen further discloses wherein the NN filter model is generated based on a scaling factor for the video unit (see QpMap in fig. 17), and the output of the NN filter model depends on the scaling factor (see YUV output in fig. 17).
Regarding claim 10, Chen further discloses wherein the scaling factor indicates a factor scaling a difference between a reconstruction of the video unit and the output of the NN filter model (e.g. see ¶ [0114]).
Regarding claim 11, Chen further discloses wherein the coding information is represented by an MxN array (see 64x64x3 in fig. 6).
Regarding claim 12, Chen further discloses wherein M and N represent a width and a height of the video unit (see 64x64x3 in fig. 6) or
Regarding claim 13, Chen further discloses wherein the coding information is represented by numbers (see 64x64x3 in fig. 6).
Regarding claim 17, Chen further discloses wherein the conversion comprises generating the bitstream according to the video media file (see 114 in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Chen further discloses wherein the conversion comprises parsing the bitstream to obtain the video media file (see 201, 202 and 222 in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, the claim(s) recite an apparatus (see figs. 1-2) analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 20, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Note: the claim discloses “ a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method”. The claim then recites steps for obtaining the bitstream. These steps do not add any further structure or functional limitation to the “bitstream”. Hence, these steps do not add patentable weight to the claim. It is recommended to either cancel the claim, change to a method claim or edit the claim to include limitations defining a function or condition to consider the body of the claim).
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 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 of this title, 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 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0103864).
Regarding claim 14, although Chen discloses granularity of the NN filter model (e.g. see ¶ [0074]), it is noted that Chen does not disclose wherein the granularity is included in the bitstream or derived.
However, Wang discloses a neural network filtering wherein the granularity is included in the bitstream or derived (e.g. see ¶ [0086], [0088]).
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Wang teachings of granularity signaling into Chen granularity coding information for the benefit of encoding, decoding, and/or store digital video information more efficiently.
Regarding claim 15, the references further discloses wherein in response to the granularity of the NN filter model being included in the bitstream, indication of the granularity is signalled in a sequence header, a picture header, a slice header, a sequence parameter set (SPS), a picture parameter set (PPS), or an adaptation parameter set (APS) (e.g. see Wang ¶ [0086], [0088]).
Regarding claim 16, the references further discloses wherein the granularity of the NN filter model specifies a size of the video unit to which the NN filter model is applied (e.g. see Wang ¶ [0086], [0088]).
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Piao et al. (US 2023/0044603), discloses AI based image filtering.
2. Dai (US 2024/0107073), discloses AI based image filtering.
3. Andersson et al. (US 2025/0071283), discloses neural network based image filtering.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD T TORRENTE whose telephone number is (571)270-3702. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6:45-3:15 pm.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2988. 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.
/RICHARD T TORRENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485