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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This office action for US Patent application 18/994221 is responsive to communications filed on January 14th, 2025. Currently, claims 1-16 are pending are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention. Supreme Court precedent and recent Federal Circuit decisions indicate that a statutory "process" under 35 U.S.C. 101 must (1) be tied to another statutory category (such as a particular apparatus), or (2) transform underlying subject matter (such as an article or material) to a different state or thing. While the instant claim recites a series of steps or acts to be performed, the claim neither transforms underlying subject matter nor is positively tied to another statutory category that accomplishes the claimed method steps, and therefore does not qualify as a statutory process. For example, it is unclear what performs, in electronic form, the steps recited in the method claim.
The Examiner suggests that the Applicant add the limitation “non-transitory” to the computer-readable recording medium as recited in the claim(s) in order to properly render the claim(s) in statutory form in view of their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the originally filed specification. The Examiner also suggests that the specification may be amended to include the term ‘non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” disclosed in the claims and ‘non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” in specification to avoid a potential objection to the specification for a lack of antecedent basis of the claimed terminology.
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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter 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 said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 1, 3-11, 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C §103 unpatentable over PARK et al. (US 20200120340 A1) in view of Ma et al. (US 20230319314 A1).
Regarding claim 1, PARK et al. (US 20200120340 A1) meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A method for reconstructing a current block, performed by a video decoding device, the method comprising:
generating a reconstruction block for the current block from a bitstream [i.e. reconstructed image (block); Fig. 2, 4, 12];
generating an output block by inputting the reconstruction block to a deep learning- based in-loop filter [i.e. input the reconstructed image to a DNN based in-loop filter to generated the filtered reconstructed image; paragraph. 0123-0124, Fig. 2, 4, 12], wherein the in-loop filter is pre-trained to generate an output that approximates original block from the reconstruction block [i.e. smallest error between original data and filtered reconstructed data; paragraph. 0123-0124, 0134; Fig. 4];
selecting a block for retraining of the in-loop filter from the reconstruction block [i.e. the reconstructed image is used as an input to train the DNN filter model; paragraph. 0145, Fig. 4, 12]; and
retraining the in-loop filter by using the selected reconstruction block and a target block [i.e. the in-loop filtering is trained based on the reconstructed image and the original data. The DNN based in-loop filter is always be trained with new data set to improve its accuracy. This concept is well-known in the art; paragraph. 0134, 0145].
Although retraining a DNN is a normal concept. However, PARK et al. (US 20200120340 A1) does not disclose it explicitly.
In the same field of endeavor, Ma et al. (US 20230319314 A1) discloses about a neural network based in-loop filter being trained and updated frequently [i.e. paragraph. 0187-0188]
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of PARK et al. (US 20200120340 A1) with Ma et al. (US 20230319314 A1) in order to create a method as the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 3, PARK et al. (US 20200120340 A1) in view of Ma et al. (US 20230319314 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, PARK et al. (US 20200120340 A1) discloses the claim limitation as follows.
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
decoding a retraining flag from the bitstream; and
checking the retraining flag,
wherein, when the retraining flag is true, selecting the block for retraining and retraining the in-loop filter are performed [i.e. retraining a NN based in-loop filter is performed to fine tune its parameters. This is well-known in the art; paragraph. 0134].
Regarding claim 4, PARK et al. (US 20200120340 A1) in view of Ma et al. (US 20230319314 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 3.
Furthermore, PARK et al. (US 20200120340 A1) discloses the claim limitation as follows.
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
The method of claim 3, when the retraining flag is true, further including:
generating an improved output block by inputting the selected reconstruction block to the retrained in-loop filter [i.e. improve output of a NN based in-loop filter based on smallest error between original data and filter reconstructed data; paragraph. 0134].
Regarding claim 5, PARK et al. (US 20200120340 A1) in view of Ma et al. (US 20230319314 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, PARK et al. (US 20200120340 A1) discloses the claim limitation as follows.
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
The method of claim 1, wherein selecting the block for retraining comprises:
determining whether to select the reconstruction block as a block for retraining based on parameters used for compression of the reconstruction block [i.e. reconstructed data with different parameters is used to train a NN based in-loop filter to improve its compression; paragraph. 0133-0134, Fig. 7].
Regarding claim 6, PARK et al. (US 20200120340 A1) in view of Ma et al. (US 20230319314 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, PARK et al. (US 20200120340 A1) discloses the claim limitation as follows.
The method of claim 1, further comprising: decoding section information to which the retraining is applied from the bitstream, wherein, selecting the block for retraining comprises: when the reconstruction block is included in the section information, selecting the reconstruction block as a block for retraining [i.e. the reconstructed data decoded from a bitstream is used to train a NN based in-loop filter; paragraph. 0094, Fig. 2, 4].
Regarding claim 7, PARK et al. (US 20200120340 A1) in view of Ma et al. (US 20230319314 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, PARK et al. (US 20200120340 A1) discloses the claim limitation as follows.
The method of claim 1, wherein selecting the block for retraining comprises: generating an output by inputting the reconstruction block to a pre-trained discriminator and determining whether to select the reconstruction block as a block for retraining based on the output of the discriminator [i.e. Fig. 4, paragraph. 0133-0134].
Regarding claim 8, PARK et al. (US 20200120340 A1) in view of Ma et al. (US 20230319314 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, PARK et al. (US 20200120340 A1) discloses the claim limitation as follows.
The method of claim 1, wherein the target block is an output block corresponding to the selected reconstruction block, a block co-located with the current block in a reference frame of the current block, a reference block indicated by a motion vector of the current block, or a prediction block searched for in a current frame according to template matching based on a template of the current block [i.e. the original data is an output corresponding to the reconstructed data; paragraph. 0134, Fig. 4].
Regarding claim 9, PARK et al. (US 20200120340 A1) in view of Ma et al. (US 20230319314 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, PARK et al. (US 20200120340 A1) discloses the claim limitation as follows.
The method of claim 1, wherein retraining the in-loop filter comprises:
defining a loss function based on a difference between the selected reconstruction block and the target block and updating parameters of the in-loop filter in a direction of reducing the loss function [i.e. training a neural network with updating parameters to reduce an error between filtered reconstructed data with original data; paragraph. 0130, 0133-0134].
Regarding claim 10, PARK et al. (US 20200120340 A1) in view of Ma et al. (US 20230319314 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, PARK et al. (US 20200120340 A1) discloses the claim limitation as follows.
The method of claim 1, wherein the in-loop filter includes a first deep learning module and a second deep learning module that include same parameters in an initial state [i.e. a DNN based in-loop filter usually has different hidden layers (modules). Each layer is initialized with weight parameters which can be the same or random. This is well-known in the art; paragraph. 0125, 0128, Fig. 5];
wherein generating the output block comprises:
generates the output block from the reconstruction block by using the first deep learning module [i.e. generate the output from the output layer; paragraph. 0128, Fig. 4],
wherein retraining the in-loop filter comprises:
updating parameters of the second deep learning module by using the selected reconstruction block and the target block [i.e. it is well-known in the art to update or freeze parameters of a certain layer as an input layer or a hidden layer in training a DNN; paragraph. 0128, Fig. 4].
Regarding claim 11, all the claim limitations which are set forth and rejected as per discussion for claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, all the claim limitations which are set forth and rejected as per discussion for claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, all the claim limitations which are set forth and rejected as per discussion for claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, all the claim limitations which are set forth and rejected as per discussion for claim 8.
Regarding claim 16, all the claim limitations which are set forth and rejected as per discussion for claim 1.
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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter 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 said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 2, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C §103 unpatentable over PARK et al. (US 20200120340 A1) in view of Ma et al. (US 20230319314 A1) further in view of SALEHIFAR et al. (US 20210099710 A1).
Regarding claim 2, PARK et al. (US 20200120340 A1) in view of Ma et al. (US 20230319314 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
However, PARK et al. (US 20200120340 A1) in view of Ma et al. (US 20230319314 A1) does not disclose about an in-loop filter flag.
In the same field of endeavor, SALEHIFAR et al. (US 20210099710 A1) discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
decoding an in-loop filter flag from the bitstream [i.e. a flag representing whether a deblocking filter is available may be signaled; paragraph. 0122]; and
checking the in-loop filter flag,
wherein, when the in-loop filter flag is true, generating the output block is performed [i.e. if a value of the deblocking filter available flag is 1, the deblocking filter is available; paragraph. 0122].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of PARK et al. (US 20200120340 A1) and Ma et al. (US 20230319314 A1) and SALEHIFAR et al. (US 20210099710 A1) in order to create a method as the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 12, all the claim limitations which are set forth and rejected as per discussion for claim 1.
Bitstream Rejections
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (20200244956).
Claim 16’s recitation of “computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream…” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps).
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 16 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Lee recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (Fig. 1-2, the bitstream from Fig. 1 is stored in Fig. 2, 210; paragraph. 0002, a method and apparatus for encoding/decoding an image and a recording medium storing a bitstream).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications form the examiner should be directed to Nam Pham, whose can be contacted by phone at (571)270-7352. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon—Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, CZEKAJ DAVID, can be reached on (571)272-7327.
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 (too 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.
/NAM D PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487