DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 09/12/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
3. Claim 18, is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The claim reciting; “18. The method of claim 1, wherein the decoded information includes intermediate information before a reconstruction of one or more pictures of the video.”, includes an intermediate information which is not clearly defined in application.
The sole description is found at par.[0110, 0171] of the Specification (PGPUB) being cited in verbatim.
The skilled in the art would not be able to comprehend the specific meaning or scope reciting the intermediate information, deemed indefinite in this case.
Clarification is required.
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, 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.
This application does not currently name joint inventors.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Miska Hannuksela et al., (hereinafter Hannuksela) (US 2023/0112309) in view of Zhipin Deng et al., (hereinafter Deng) (US 2024/0137570).
Re Claim 1. Hannuksela discloses, a method of video decoding (a video decoding method at VCM decoder 810 in Fig.8), comprising:
receiving a coded video bitstream comprising coded information of a video for a machine task (receiving a coded bitstream 804 comprising video for a machine task VCM, per Fig.8, Par.[0344]);
selecting, among coding tools of a video codec, a first subset of the coding tools that is used for coding the video for the machine task (selecting from among coding tools for object detection Task-NN 814, an object segmentation Task-NN 816, an object tracking Task-NN 818 or other Task-NN 820 in Fig.8, Par.[0344] or depicted in Fig.9 Par.[0345]);
generating decoded information from the coded video bitstream based on the first subset of the coding tools (generating the decoded information from bitstream according to media content or subset differing by the encoding choice, Par.[0216, 0238] or based on coding standards, NAL units consisting of header and payload Par.[0297], the payloadType indicating a SEI message, coded video sequence (CVS), CLVS, etc., Par.[0326-0333] along with parsable syntax elements identifying a syntax structure addressed by indicator (idc), Par.[0334-0336] or according to Fig.11 by high-level bitstream syntax Par.[0350]); and
performing the machine task using the decoded information (performing the machine tasks using the decoded data of Task-NN 1016, at Task output 1014, in Fig.10, according to high level syntax (HLS) information Par.[0350] Fig.11).
In an analogous art Deng discloses the specific coding method and the high-level syntax by which addressing specific syntax subsets fit to represent the selected machine task by imposed syntax subset constraints e.g., as a first and second syntax identified levels (i.e., machine generated signals to encode information to be transmitted to a suitable receiver apparatus, Par.[01463]) as claiming,
a method of video decoding (decoding method Par.[0002, 0004] Fig.6), comprising:
receiving a coded video bitstream comprising coded information (receiving a bitstream comprising coded information for determining a machine task of video coding, in the form of signaled constraint flag syntax information representing control occurrences i.e., tasks, via high level sequence parameter set (SPS) Par.[1191, 1207] being used in machine processing data Par.[1463]);
selecting, among coding tools of a video codec, a first subset of the coding tools that is used for coding the video for the machine task (selecting a first subset of coding tools, e.g., low-frequency non-separable transform (LFNST), Par.[0065] is indicated e.g., per code line-1 of syntax, sps_lfnst_enabled_flag, on Pg.15 Table);
generating decoded information from the coded video bitstream based on the first subset of the coding tools (parsing decoded information from bitstream according to the general constraint information syntax at Par.[0111] by the coded line general_constraint_info(), containing a plurality of a first subset parsed from the input bitstream, e.g., at the coding lines representing; from table at line 14, no_qybtt_dual_tree_intra_constraint_ flag, no_partition_constraints_override_constraint_flag ….. etc.,… to line 49, and Par.[0097]); and
performing the machine task using the decoded information (the machine task as identified at Par.[1463], performing machine-generated signals for coding video data, indicated by the high-level syntax seq_parameter_set_rbsp() at Par.[1029] and identifying each the constraints claimed in the code table at Pg.65, or considering the SPS NAL, units being high-syntax, Par.[0242] or higher than SPS or PH/SH level Par.[1244-1253] level where the first subset is represented by a flag, no_aps_constraint_flag Par.[1254]) using the decoded information (performing the machine task at decoder by incrementing the num_reserved_constraint_bytes, and processing according to the respective general constraint index i, per code line gci_reserved_constraint_byte[i] at lines 50-55 of the code table at Par.[0111]).
As found in Hannuksela reference teaching the machine tasks (VCM) according to parsing specific syntax coded into the bitstream for improving the visual quality of media, the ordinary skilled in the art would have found obvious before the effective filing date of invention, to seek the specific details associated with the machine task being performed by using selected coded syntax subsets used in video coding for machine tasks identified in Deng, hence finding such combination predictable.
Re Claim 2. Hannuksela and Deng disclose, the method of claim 1,
Deng teaches, wherein the first subset of the coding tools comprises at least one (as defined by the new general constraint flag, added to control one or more coding tools, Par.[0978]) of:
binary tree block partitions at (determined by the coded line table general_constraint_info(), Par.[0111, 0133]);
ternary tree block partitions (containing a plurality of a first subset parsed from the input bitstream, e.g., at the coding line table representing; from table at line 14, no_qybtt_dual_tree_intra_constraint_ flag, Par.[0111, 0132];
recursive block partitions;
secondary transform (secondary transform, e.g., the LFNST Par.[0989] );
low-frequency non-separable transform (LFNST) (the LFNST Par.[0989]);
subblock motion vector refinement;
decoder side motion vector refinement (DMVR) (one or more, no_DMVR_constraint_flag, Par.[0111]);
adaptive motion vector resolution;
dependent quantization; and/or
deblocking filter.
Re Claim 3. Hannuksela and Deng disclose, the method of claim 1, wherein: the selecting comprises:
Deng teaches, determining, among the coding tools of the video codec, a second subset of the coding tools (determining a second subset of the coding tools among which any one of an intra ISP, MIP, DIMD, inter BDOF, MMVD, SBT, bi-pred with CU weights BCW, multi transform MTS, sec NSPT, loop-filters ALF, CCALF, SAO, or scaling luma-chroma LMCS) to exclude for the machine task (to be excluded from the machine task processing according to their respective syntax flag logic state i.e., “0” disabling the one or more second subset(s) as directed at the exemplary syntax; sps_affine_enabled_flag Par.[0385], sps_alf_enabled_flag == 0, Par.[1046], sps_mmvd_enabled_flag==0, Par.[1110], sps_isp_enabled_flag==0, Par.[1111], or the sps_bdof_disabled_flag==1, Par.[0727], etc., as expressly taught in art taken as whole); and the generating comprises:
generating the decoded information from the coded video bitstream without using the second subset of the coding tools (thus decoding the information without using the disabled second subset tools, or excluded from the machine task as set by their respective flags, e.g., as summarized for all second subset syntax, when the respective tools are disabled by their logic flag value being “0”, Par.[1312]).
Hannuksela reference teaching the machine tasks (VCM)
Re Claim 4. Hannuksela and Deng disclose, the method of claim 3, wherein the second subset of the coding tools comprises at least one intra coding tool in:
Deng teaches the, intra subblock prediction (ISP) (ISP is part of the second subset, Par.[0890] as signaled by sps_isp_enabled_flag, Par.[1111] ;
matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) (or the MIP, at Par.[0890]); and/or
decoder-side intra mode derivation (DIMD).
Re Claim 5. Hannuksela and Deng disclose, the method of claim 3,
Deng teaches, wherein the second subset of the coding tools comprises at least one inter (at least one of inter prediction tools as part of the second subset at Par.[0890] or other inter tools at Par.[0951]) coding tool in:
optical flow-based motion refinement;
bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) (BDOF tool at Par.[0951] etc.);
merge with motion vector difference (MMVD) (the MMVD tool, Par.[0890, 0951]);
subblock transform (SBT) (Par.[0951]);
affine mode (affine mode transform, Par.[0951]); and/or
bi-prediction with CU level weights (BCW) (BCW at Par.[0951]).
Re Claim 6. Hannuksela and Deng disclose, the method of claim 3,
Deng teaches, wherein the second subset of the coding tools comprises at least one transform and quantization tool (transform 305 and quantization 304 tools are applied at decoder, in Fig.6) in:
multiple transform set (MTS) (at least one of the MTS as signaled Par.[0379-0381]); and/or
non-separable primary transform (NSPT) (LFNST at least at Par.[0406).
Re Claim 7. Hannuksela and Deng disclose, the method of claim 3,
Deng teaches, wherein the second subset of the coding tools comprises at least one in-loop filtering tool (in-loop filtering is not applied at the second coding tool, Par.[0284]) in:
luma mapping chroma scaling (LMCS) (LMCS at Par.[0405]);
adaptive loop filter (ALF) (ALF at Par.[0785-0791]);
cross-component adaptive loop filter (CCALF) (CCALF at Par.[0792-0796]);
sample adaptive offset (SAO) (Par.[0359]); and/or
bilateral filtering.
Re Claim 8. Hannuksela and Deng disclose, the method of claim 3, wherein the determining comprises:
Deng teaches about, determining that a control flag (signaling a constraint flag syntax information representing control occurrences i.e., tasks, via high level sequence parameter set (SPS) Par.[1191, 1207] being used in machine processing data Par.[1463]) associated with a specific coding tool indicates a disabling of the specific coding tool (all coding tools disabled at claim 3, by decoding the information without using the disabled second subset tools, or excluded from the machine task as set by their respective flags, e.g., as summarized for all second subset syntax, when the respective tools are disabled by their logic flag value being “0”, Par.[1312]) ; and
determining that the specific coding tool is in the second subset of the coding tools (as claimed, the respective tools determined as a second subset of the coding tools among which any one of an intra are ISP, MIP, DIMD, inter BDOF, MMVD, SBT, bi-pred with CU weights BCW, multi transform MTS, sec NSPT, loop-filters ALF, CCALF, SAO, or scaling luma-chroma LMCS) to exclude for the machine task (to be excluded from the machine task processing according to their respective syntax flag logic state i.e., “0” disabling the one or more second subset(s) as directed at the exemplary syntax; sps_affine_enabled_flag Par.[0385], sps_alf_enabled_flag == 0, Par.[1046], sps_mmvd_enabled_flag==0, Par.[1110], sps_isp_enabled_flag==0, Par.[1111], or the sps_bdof_disabled_flag==1, Par.[0727], etc., as expressly taught in art taken as whole).
Hannuksela reference teaching the machine tasks (VCM).
Re Claim 9. Hannuksela and Deng disclose, the method of claim 8, comprising:
Deng teaches about, determining a value of the control flag from a high level syntax in the coded video bitstream, the high level syntax being of one of a sequence level parameter and/or a picture level parameter (determining the value of the high-level syntax seq_parameter_set_rbsp( ) at least at Par.[0379]).
Re Claim 10. Hannuksela and Deng disclose, the method of claim 8, further comprising:
Deng teaches about, determining a value of the control flag to indicate the disabling of the specific coding tool when the coded video bitstream is determined for the machine task (signaling a constraint flag syntax information representing control occurrences i.e., general constraint flag, controlling the described tools Par.[0978-0979], i.e., tasks, via high level sequence parameter set (SPS) Par.[1191, 1207] used in machine processing data Par.[1463]).
Re Claim 11. Hannuksela and Deng disclose, the method of claim 8, further comprising:
Deng teaches about, extracting the control flag from a sequence parameter set (SPS), the control flag being constrained to have a value indicating the disabling of the specific coding tool, wherein the control flag comprises at least one (a constraint flag syntax information representing control occurrences i.e., general constraint flag, controlling the described tools Par.[0978-0979], i.e., disabling coding tasks, via sequence parameter set (SPS) Par.[1191, 1207] used in machine processing data Par.[1463]) of:
sps_mts_enabled_flag associated with a transform and quantization tool of multiple transform set (MTS);
sps_alf_enabled_flag associated with an in-loop filtering tool of adaptive loop filter (ALF);
sps_lmcs_enabled_flag associated with an in-loop filtering tool of luma mapping chroma scaling (LMCS);
sps_bdof_enabled_flag associated with an inter coding tool of bi-directional optical flow (BDOF);
sps_mmvd_enabled_flag associated with an inter coding tool of merge with motion vector difference (MMVD);
sps_sbt_enabled_flag associated with an inter coding tool of subblock transform (SBT);
sps_affine_enabled_flag associated with an inter coding tool of affine mode;
sps_bcw_enabled_flag associated with an inter coding tool of bi-prediction with CU level weights (BCW); and/or
sps_isp_enabled_flag associated with an intra coding tool of intra subblock prediction (ISP) (where the one or more of the above coding tasks are disabled by the control flag, as listed at Par.[0979-0990]).
Re Claim 12. Hannuksela and Deng disclose, the method of claim 8, further comprising:
Deng teaches about, determining a referenced sequence parameter set (SPS) associated with at least one of a profile, a sub-profile, a tier and a level (a constraint flag syntax information representing control occurrences i.e., general constraint flag, controlling the described tools Par.[0978-0979], i.e., disabling coding tasks, via sequence parameter set (SPS) Par.[1191, 1207] used in machine processing data Par.[1463]); and
decoding the control flag from the referenced SPS, the control flag being constrained to have a value indicating the disabling of the specific coding tool, wherein the control flag comprises at least one of:
sps_mts_enabled_flag associated with a transform and quantization tool of multiple transform set (MTS);
sps_alf_enabled_flag associated with an in-loop filtering tool of adaptive loop filter (ALF);
sps_lmcs_enabled_flag associated with an in-loop filtering tool of luma mapping chroma scaling (LMCS);
Sps_bdof_enabled_flag associated with an inter coding tool of bi-directional optical flow (BDOF);
sps_mmvd_enabled_flag associated with an inter coding tool of merge with motion vector difference (MMVD);
sps_sbt_enabled_flag associated with an inter coding tool of subblock transform (SBT) ;
sps_affine_enabled_flag associated with an inter coding tool of affine mode;
sps_bcw_enabled_flag associated with an inter coding tool of bi-prediction with CU level weights (BCW); and/or
sps_isp_enabled_flag associated with an intra coding tool of intra subblock prediction (ISP) (where the one or more of the above coding tasks are controlled by the control flag, under the SPS flags, as listed at Par.[0979-0990]). .
Re Claim 13. Hannuksela and Deng disclose, the method of claim 8, further comprising: decoding a syntax from the coded video bitstream;
Deng teaches about, when the syntax has a first value, decoding the control flag from the coded video bitstream; and
when the syntax has a second value, inferring the control flag to have a value indicating the disabling of the specific coding tool (the ordinary skilled in the art would have found obvious read the flag values having two binary states 0/1 by which the respective coding task would be enabled or disabled as indicated at the respective paragraphs of claim 8).
Re Claim 14. Hannuksela and Deng disclose, the method of claim 3, wherein the determining comprises:
Deng teaches about, decoding a high level syntax (HLS) flag from the coded video bitstream, the HLS flag indicating whether the coded video bitstream is for the machine task or a human vision task (according to the high-level flag, general_cobstraint_info( ), Par.[0978, 1011-1013, 1077, 1122, 1203], generating a user viewable video representation to a display interface 1910, Par.[1157] or being machine processed task, Par.[1157]); and
when the HLS indicates that the coded video bitstream is for the machine task, determining, among the coding tools of the video codec, the second subset of the coding tools to exclude for the machine task (the general constraint flag, disabling the second coding tools, Par.[0970-0985] etc.,).
Hannuksela reference teaching the machine tasks (VCM).
Re Claim 15. Hannuksela and Deng disclose, the method of claim 3, wherein the determining comprises:
Deng teaches about, determining one or more requirements of the machine task (having the control flag i.e., the general constraint flag used to determine or condition the task associated with the SPS/PPS/PH/SH parameters, Par.[0969-0970]); and
determining the second subset of the coding tools to exclude for the machine task based on the one or more requirements of the machine task (the second subset is determined as defined at by the SPS/PPS/PH/SH parameters, necessitating the disabling or enabling, Par.[0969-0970] as established and mapped at claims 11 and 12).
Hannuksela reference teaching the machine tasks (VCM).
Re Claim 16. Hannuksela and Deng disclose, the method of claim 15, wherein when the machine task is object tracking, the second subset of the coding tools corresponds to a first excluding subset of the coding tools, and
Deng teaches about, when the machine task is object detection, the second subset of the coding tools corresponds to a second excluding subset of the coding tools, the first excluding subset of the coding tools and the second excluding subset of the coding tools have at least one different inclusion and/or exclusion coding tool (the second subset excluding is determined as defined at by the SPS/PPS/PH/SH parameters, necessitating the disabling or enabling, Par.[0969-0970] as established and mapped at claims 11 and 12).
Hannuksela reference teaching the machine tasks (VCM).
Re Claim 17. Hannuksela and Deng disclose, the method of claim 1, wherein: the generating comprises:
Deng teaches about, reconstructing one or more pictures of the video based on the first subset of the coding tools; and
the performing comprises:
performing the machine task based on the one or more pictures (this limitation is mapped at claim 1 as being controlled by the first syntax subset of video data coding).
Re Claim 18. Hannuksela and Deng disclose, the method of claim 1, wherein the decoded information includes intermediate information before a reconstruction of one or more pictures of the video.
(This claim requires clarification on the rejection issued under 35 U.S.C. 112(b))
Re Claim 19. This claim represents the method of video encoding (Deng: encoder 100 at Fig.4), performing at the prediction loop the same coding process recited at each and every limitation of the decoding method of claim 1, hence it is rejected on the same evidentiary probe mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 20. A method of video processing, the method comprising:
processing a bitstream of video data according to a format rule, (Deng: format rule obtained from the bitstream, at least at Par.[1243]) wherein each and every claimed limitation is represented at the method claim 1, hence it is rejected on the same evidentiary probe mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Other identified art; US 2022/0256227; WO2025076258A1; US 12,439,032; US 11,758,164; US 12,452,463.
See PTO-892 form. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c) to consider these references when responding to this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRAMOS KALAPODAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4622. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-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, David Czekaj can be reached on 571-272-7327. 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 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 (toll-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.
/DRAMOS KALAPODAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487