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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged (US Provisional Application 63/389,788 filed July 15th, 2022).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on February 28th, 2025 and December 4th, 2025 were filed before the mailing date of the First Action on the Merits (this Office Action). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed February 28th, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. This is regarding NPL Citation #32 as only a listing of references citing the document (JCTVC-J1100) was provided and not the actual document cited itself (JCTVC-J1100).
Due to the excessively lengthy Information Disclosure Statement submitted by applicant, the examiner has given only a cursory review of the listed references. In accordance with MPEP 609.04(a), applicant is encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the information is being submitted and how it is understood to be relevant. Concise explanations (especially those which point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more are highly relevant to patentability. Applicant is required to comply with this statement for any non-English language documents. See 37 CFR § 1.56 Duty to Disclose Information Material to Patentability.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract is a single sentence written in legalese language instead of a series of brief sentences in narrative format describing the inventive concept. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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.
Claim Interpretation – Functional Analysis
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.
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 use the word “means” or “step” or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “cause the processor to” in claim 15.
The Examiner notes the claimed “non-transitory memory” and “processor” elements of claim 15 have status connoting sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus claim 15 does NOT invoke Functional Analysis.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 1 – 20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites "conversion" which has Indefinite metes and bounds as processes (e.g. encoding) and their inverse (e.g. decoding) are encompassed thus the claim has Indefinite metes and bounds as the steps of the claim have no distinction between such processes. Further, the claim raises issues regarding Essential Steps as the claim omits the encoder deriving the partition information and the decoder receiving the tile partition information.
Regarding claims 15 and 20, see claim 1 which performs the steps of the claimed apparatus (claim 15) and program (claim 20) and thus are similarly Rejected.
Regarding claims 2 – 12 and 16 – 19, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of their respective independent claims and thus are similarly Rejected.
While claims 13 and 14 are not Rejected, the inclusion of only one of the respective dependent claims (not both simultaneously) would overcome the Rejection of claim 1 and the recitation of the other would result in improper dependency issues (e.g. a decoder depending on an encoder as the inverse process depending on the forward process or vice versa).
Regarding claim 1, the claimed “visual data unit” is not recited in the Specification and thus has Indefinite metes and bounds.
Regarding claims 15 and 20, see claim 1 which performs the steps of the claimed apparatus (claim 15) and program (claim 20) and thus are similarly Rejected.
Regarding claims 2 – 14 and 16 – 19, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of their respective independent claims and thus are similarly Rejected.
Regarding claim 16, the claim does not present options as to the alternative as the claim recites “whether” but only one option. Thus the claim has Indefinite metes and bounds.
Regarding claim 2, see claim 16 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method and thus is similarly Rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 18, the claim does not further limit as the options covers all possibilities and no selection or decision is made. Thus, the claim does not further limit claim 15 from which it depends.
Regarding claim 19, should the claim be incorporated into claim 18 then the Rejection would be overcome.
Regarding claim 7, see claim 18 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method and thus is similarly Rejected.
Regarding claim 8, should the claim be incorporated into claim 7 then the Rejection would be overcome.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia, et al. (WO2022/128105 A1 referred to as “Jia” throughout) [Cited in Applicant’s December 4th, 2025 IDS], and further in view of Kim (US PG PUB 2022/0191456 A1 referred to as “Kim” throughout) and Ikonin, et al. (US PG PUB 2023/0262243 A1 referred to as “Ikonin” throughout).
Regarding claim 1, see claim 15 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 2, see claim 16 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 4, see claim 17 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 7, see claim 18 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 8, see claim 19 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 20, see claim 15 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 3, Jia teaches tile partition information and padding considerations of the partition to use as input to a neural network for encoding / decoding and further if the partitions are to be independently processed or not. Kim teaches syntax and padding considerations for tiles. Ikonin teaches the use of a synthesis transform to use in a neural network based encoding / decoding process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jia with the partitioning and padding considerations taught by Kim and the use of neural network synthesis transforms as taught by Ikonin. The combination teaches
wherein tile partitioning for the current visual data unit is performed in a horizontal direction and/or a vertical direction [Jia Figures 14 – 16 (horizontal / vertical partitions shown), 20, and 25 – 26 (see at least reference characters 266 and 366) as well as Page 22 line 32 – Page 24 line 9 (tile group and partition of images into tiles with tile level syntax elements), Page 43 lines 11 – 30 (syntax for each tile partitions), and Page 62 line 3 – Page 63 line 12 (number and direction of partitions signaled by horizontal / vertical axes rendering obvious the claimed directions) combinable with specific information such as Kim Figure 4 as well as Paragraphs 143 – 149 (enabling partitioning into tiles and tile size information) and 326 – 330 (tile header information and included tables)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Jia, Kim, and Ikonin.
Regarding claim 5, Jia teaches tile partition information and padding considerations of the partition to use as input to a neural network for encoding / decoding and further if the partitions are to be independently processed or not. Kim teaches syntax and padding considerations for tiles. Ikonin teaches the use of a synthesis transform to use in a neural network based encoding / decoding process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jia with the partitioning and padding considerations taught by Kim and the use of neural network synthesis transforms as taught by Ikonin. The combination teaches
wherein a size of a partition is determined based on a size of the current visual data unit and indications included in the bitstream [Jia Figures 14 – 20 (horizontal / vertical partitions shown) and 25 – 26 (see at least reference characters 266 and 366) as well as Page 22 line 32 – Page 24 line 9 (tile group and partition of images into tiles with tile level syntax elements), Page 43 lines 11 – 30 (syntax for each tile partitions), Page 49 line 15 – Page 50 line 27 (size determinations of a picture / frame and signaling information to a decoder / generating indications) and Page 62 line 3 – Page 63 line 12 (number and direction of partitions signaled by horizontal / vertical axes) combinable with specific information such as Kim Figures 4 and 26 – 31 (horizontal and vertical partitions included) as well as Paragraphs 143 – 149 (enabling partitioning into tiles and tile size information / syntax to signal)], and
wherein the indications include the first indication and the second indication [Jia Figures 14 – 20 (horizontal / vertical partitions shown) and 25 – 26 (see at least reference characters 266 and 366) as well as Page 22 line 32 – Page 24 line 9 (tile group and partition of images into tiles with tile level syntax elements), Page 43 lines 11 – 30 (syntax for each tile partitions), and Page 62 line 3 – Page 63 line 12 (number and direction of partitions signaled by horizontal / vertical axes) combinable with specific information such as Kim Figure 4 and 26 – 31 (horizontal and vertical partitions included) as well as Paragraphs 143 – 149 (enabling partitioning into tiles and tile size information) and 326 – 330 (tile header information and included tables)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Jia, Kim, and Ikonin.
Regarding claim 6, Jia teaches tile partition information and padding considerations of the partition to use as input to a neural network for encoding / decoding and further if the partitions are to be independently processed or not. Kim teaches syntax and padding considerations for tiles. Ikonin teaches the use of a synthesis transform to use in a neural network based encoding / decoding process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jia with the partitioning and padding considerations taught by Kim and the use of neural network synthesis transforms as taught by Ikonin. The combination teaches
wherein a size of a partition is determined based on a syntax element for indicating a minimum size value [Jia Figures 14 – 20 (horizontal / vertical partitions shown) and 23 – 26 (see at least reference characters 266 and 366) as well as Page 22 line 32 – Page 24 line 9 (tile group and partition of images into tiles with tile level syntax elements), Page 43 lines 11 – 30 (syntax for each tile partitions), Page 49 line 15 – Page 50 line 27 (size determinations of a picture / frame and signaling information to a decoder / generating indications with smaller size suggested in at least Page 55 lines 20 – 33 and Page 73 lines 8 – 23) and Page 62 line 3 – Page 63 line 12 (number and direction of partitions signaled by horizontal / vertical axes) combinable with specific information such as Kim Figures 4 and 26 – 31 (horizontal and vertical partitions included) as well as Paragraphs 143 – 149 (enabling partitioning into tiles and tile size information / syntax to signal), 596 – 601 and 617 – 622 (small / minimum block size considerations thus rendering obvious the claimed minimum size value combinable with suggestions in Ikonin Paragraphs 117 – 118 and 260 – 261)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Jia, Kim, and Ikonin.
Regarding claim 9, Jia teaches tile partition information and padding considerations of the partition to use as input to a neural network for encoding / decoding and further if the partitions are to be independently processed or not. Kim teaches syntax and padding considerations for tiles. Ikonin teaches the use of a synthesis transform to use in a neural network based encoding / decoding process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jia with the partitioning and padding considerations taught by Kim and the use of neural network synthesis transforms as taught by Ikonin. The combination teaches
wherein when a partition is obtained through padding, a padding region of the partition is filled using a value corresponding to an adjacent partition [Jia Figures 12 and 15 – 20 (padding added around partitions of tiles) as well as Page 69 line 14 – Page 70 line 10 (nears neighbor used for padding an obvious variant of the use of adjacent pixels / sample taught in Kim Figures 26 – 31 as well as Paragraphs 257 – 258 (padding with pixels in an adjacent tile / region))].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Jia, Kim, and Ikonin.
Regarding claim 10, Jia teaches tile partition information and padding considerations of the partition to use as input to a neural network for encoding / decoding and further if the partitions are to be independently processed or not. Kim teaches syntax and padding considerations for tiles. Ikonin teaches the use of a synthesis transform to use in a neural network based encoding / decoding process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jia with the partitioning and padding considerations taught by Kim and the use of neural network synthesis transforms as taught by Ikonin. The combination teaches
wherein when a partition is obtained through padding, a size of a padding region for the partition is fixed [Jia Figures 12 and 15 – 20 (padding added around partitions of tiles) as well as Page 69 line 14 – Page 70 line 10 (signaled in the size / number of samples to pad the region / tile by and also taught in Kim Figures 26 – 31 as well as Paragraphs 253 – 260 (padding in horizontal / vertical directions rendering obvious the “size” claimed))].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Jia, Kim, and Ikonin.
Regarding claim 11, Jia teaches tile partition information and padding considerations of the partition to use as input to a neural network for encoding / decoding and further if the partitions are to be independently processed or not. Kim teaches syntax and padding considerations for tiles. Ikonin teaches the use of a synthesis transform to use in a neural network based encoding / decoding process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jia with the partitioning and padding considerations taught by Kim and the use of neural network synthesis transforms as taught by Ikonin. The combination teaches
wherein when a partition is obtained through padding, a size of a padding region for the partition is determined based on a syntax element included in the bitstream [Jia Figures 12 and 15 – 20 (padding added around partitions of tiles) as well as Page 69 line 14 – Page 70 line 10 (signaled in the size / number of samples to pad the region / tile as well as using syntax elements to signal the padding required /used and also taught in Kim Figures 26 – 31 as well as Paragraphs 253 – 260 (padding in horizontal / vertical directions and values of the padding / adjustments in dimensions renders obvious the syntax claimed))].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Jia, Kim, and Ikonin.
Regarding claim 12, Jia teaches tile partition information and padding considerations of the partition to use as input to a neural network for encoding / decoding and further if the partitions are to be independently processed or not. Kim teaches syntax and padding considerations for tiles. Ikonin teaches the use of a synthesis transform to use in a neural network based encoding / decoding process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jia with the partitioning and padding considerations taught by Kim and the use of neural network synthesis transforms as taught by Ikonin. The combination teaches
wherein tile partitioning for the current visual data unit is applied at an input of one or more processes of the neural network module processing [Jia Figures 4, 11, and 14 – 20 (tile partitioning – combinable with Kim Figure 4 as well as Paragraphs 143 – 149 (enabling partitioning into tiles and tile size information) and 326 – 330 (tile header information and included tables)) as well as Page 25 lines 15 – 34 (layers based on dimensions of input), Page 41 line 16 – Page 42 line 6, and Page 43 line 12 – Page 45 line 26 (partition size affects dimensions of layers (Page 43 lines 12 – 28) and processing regions / tile partitions (Kim and Jia) with NNs sized based on region size to process (Page 45 lines 1 – 26)); Ikonin Figures 1 – 3 and 19 – 20 as well as Paragraphs 134 – 138 (synthesis transforms used in NNs as a process of the neural network), 233 – 240 (partition input to a NN and layers (e.g. dimensions affected by partition size)) and 245 – 248 (tables included where the partition is input to NN / layers and further effects on layers / functions based on partitions in Paragraphs 254 – 260)], and
wherein the one or more processes include synthesis transform [Ikonin Figures 1 – 3 as well as Paragraphs 134 – 138 (synthesis transforms used in NNs)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Jia, Kim, and Ikonin.
Regarding claim 13, Jia teaches tile partition information and padding considerations of the partition to use as input to a neural network for encoding / decoding and further if the partitions are to be independently processed or not. Kim teaches syntax and padding considerations for tiles. Ikonin teaches the use of a synthesis transform to use in a neural network based encoding / decoding process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jia with the partitioning and padding considerations taught by Kim and the use of neural network synthesis transforms as taught by Ikonin. The combination teaches
wherein the conversion includes encoding the current visual data unit into the bitstream [Jia Figures 1 – 3 (subfigures included see at least reference character 20) as well as Page 13 lines 6 – 12 (encoding / decoding framework for NNs usage) and Page 14 line 4 – Page 15 line 2 (encoding / decoding embodiments using NNs) and Page 18 line 28 – Page 19 line 6 (various codecs)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Jia, Kim, and Ikonin.
Regarding claim 14, Jia teaches tile partition information and padding considerations of the partition to use as input to a neural network for encoding / decoding and further if the partitions are to be independently processed or not. Kim teaches syntax and padding considerations for tiles. Ikonin teaches the use of a synthesis transform to use in a neural network based encoding / decoding process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jia with the partitioning and padding considerations taught by Kim and the use of neural network synthesis transforms as taught by Ikonin. The combination teaches
wherein the conversion includes decoding the current visual data unit from the bitstream [Jia Figures 1 – 3 (subfigures included see at least reference character 30) as well as Page 13 lines 6 – 12 (encoding / decoding framework for NNs usage) and Page 14 line 4 – Page 15 line 2 (encoding / decoding embodiments using NNs) and Page 18 line 28 – Page 19 line 6 (various codecs)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Jia, Kim, and Ikonin.
Regarding claim 15, Jia teaches tile partition information and padding considerations of the partition to use as input to a neural network for encoding / decoding and further if the partitions are to be independently processed or not. Kim teaches syntax and padding considerations for tiles. Ikonin teaches the use of a synthesis transform to use in a neural network based encoding / decoding process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jia with the partitioning and padding considerations taught by Kim and the use of neural network synthesis transforms as taught by Ikonin. The combination teaches
a processor [Jia Figures 3 – 4 (see at least reference character 430) as well as Page 19 lines 8 – 29] and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor [Jia Figures 1 – 4 (see at least reference character 460) as well as Page 18 lines 3 – 17 and Page 19 lines 8 – 29 (memory and instructions in memory for the processor to execute)], cause the processor to:
determine, for a conversion between a current visual data unit of visual data and a bitstream of the current visual data unit [Jia Figures 1 – 2, 4 – 6 (see at least reference characters 20, 21, 30, 410, 450, and 203), and 25 – 26 (tile partitioning) as well as Page 21 line 14 – Page 22 line 31 (picture partitioned into slices or tiles to encode / decode) and Page 22 line 32 – Page 24 line 9 (decoder inverse or encoder processing a bitstream of encoded video data)], tile partitioning information of the current visual data unit [Jia Figures 14 – 16 and 25 – 26 (see at least reference characters 266 and 366) as well as Page 22 line 32 – Page 24 line 9 (tile group and partition of images into tiles with tile level syntax elements) and Page 43 lines 11 – 30 (syntax for each tile partitions) combinable with specific information such as Kim Figure 4 as well as Paragraphs 143 – 149 (enabling partitioning into tiles and tile size information) and 326 – 330 (tile header information and included tables)]; and
perform the conversion by applying neural network module processing based on the tile partitioning information [See next limitation for citations of Jia and Ikonin], wherein an input of a layer of a neural network-based coding tool is determined based on the tile partitioning information [Jia Figures 4, 11, and 14 – 20 (tile partitioning – combinable with Kim Figure 4 as well as Paragraphs 143 – 149 (enabling partitioning into tiles and tile size information) and 326 – 330 (tile header information and included tables)) as well as Page 25 lines 15 – 34 (layers based on dimensions of input), Page 41 line 16 – Page 42 line 6, and Page 43 line 12 – Page 45 line 26 (partition size affects dimensions of layers (Page 43 lines 12 – 28) and processing regions / tile partitions (Kim and Jia) with NNs sized based on region size to process (Page 45 lines 1 – 26)); Ikonin Figures 1 – 3 and 19 – 20 as well as Paragraphs 134 – 138 (synthesis transforms used in NNs), 233 – 240 (partition input to a NN and layers (e.g. dimensions affected by partition size)) and 245 – 248 (tables included where the partition is input to NN / layers and further effects on layers / functions based on partitions in Paragraphs 254 – 260)].
The motivation to combine Kim with Jia is to combine features in the same / related field of invention encoding / decoding immersive / UHD/ HD media [Kim Paragraphs 3 – 5] in order to improve / enhance performance of the codec [Kim Paragraphs 3 – 4 and 16 where the Examiner observes KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
The motivation to combine Ikonin with Kim and Jia is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of neural network processing and side information for video compression [Ikonin Paragraphs 3 – 5] in order to improve compression using neural networks [Ikonin Paragraphs 7 – 8 and 107 where the Examiner observes KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Jia, Kim, and Ikonin which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 16, Jia teaches tile partition information and padding considerations of the partition to use as input to a neural network for encoding / decoding and further if the partitions are to be independently processed or not. Kim teaches syntax and padding considerations for tiles. Ikonin teaches the use of a synthesis transform to use in a neural network based encoding / decoding process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jia with the partitioning and padding considerations taught by Kim and the use of neural network synthesis transforms as taught by Ikonin. The combination teaches
wherein a flag is included in the bitstream to indicate whether tile partitioning is applied to the current visual data unit [Jia Figures 14 – 16 and 25 – 26 (see at least reference characters 266 and 366) as well as Page 22 line 32 – Page 24 line 9 (tile group and partition of images into tiles with tile level syntax elements) and Page 43 lines 11 – 30 (syntax for each tile partitions) combinable with specific information such as Kim Figure 4 as well as Paragraphs 143 – 149 (enabling partitioning into tiles and tile size information) and 326 – 330 (tile header information and included tables)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Jia, Kim, and Ikonin.
Regarding claim 17, Jia teaches tile partition information and padding considerations of the partition to use as input to a neural network for encoding / decoding and further if the partitions are to be independently processed or not. Kim teaches syntax and padding considerations for tiles. Ikonin teaches the use of a synthesis transform to use in a neural network based encoding / decoding process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jia with the partitioning and padding considerations taught by Kim and the use of neural network synthesis transforms as taught by Ikonin. The combination teaches
wherein the current visual data unit is split into multiple partitions through tile partitioning [Jia Figures 14 – 16 and 25 – 26 (see at least reference characters 266 and 366) as well as Page 22 line 32 – Page 24 line 9 (tile group and partition of images into tiles with tile level syntax elements,) Page 41 line 16 – Page 42 line 6, and Page 43 line 11 – Page 45 line 26 (syntax for each tile partitions (Page 43 lines 11 – 30) and processing regions / tile partitions (Kim and Jia) with NNs sized based on region size to process (Page 45 lines 1 – 26)) combinable with specific information such as Kim Figure 4 as well as Paragraphs 143 – 149 (enabling partitioning into tiles and tile size information) and 326 – 330 (tile header information and included tables)];
wherein a first indication indicating a number of horizontal splits of the current visual data unit is included in the bitstream [See next limitation for citations as Jia Figures 14 – 20 illustrate that either horizontal or vertical partitions are possible with associated syntax thus citations are similarly applied], and/or
wherein a second indication indicating a number of vertical splits of the current visual data unit is included in the bitstream [Jia Figures 14 – 16 (horizontal / vertical partitions shown), 20, and 25 – 26 (see at least reference characters 266 and 366) as well as Page 22 line 32 – Page 24 line 9 (tile group and partition of images into tiles with tile level syntax elements), Page 43 lines 11 – 30 (syntax for each tile partitions), and Page 62 line 3 – Page 63 line 12 (number and direction of partitions signaled by horizontal / vertical axes) combinable with specific information such as Kim Figure 4 as well as Paragraphs 143 – 149 (enabling partitioning into tiles and tile size information) and 326 – 330 (tile header information and included tables)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Jia, Kim, and Ikonin.
Regarding claim 18, Jia teaches tile partition information and padding considerations of the partition to use as input to a neural network for encoding / decoding and further if the partitions are to be independently processed or not. Kim teaches syntax and padding considerations for tiles. Ikonin teaches the use of a synthesis transform to use in a neural network based encoding / decoding process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jia with the partitioning and padding considerations taught by Kim and the use of neural network synthesis transforms as taught by Ikonin. The combination teaches
wherein the current visual data unit is split into multiple partitions through tile partitioning [Jia Figures 14 – 16 and 25 – 26 (see at least reference characters 266 and 366) as well as Page 22 line 32 – Page 24 line 9 (tile group and partition of images into tiles with tile level syntax elements,) Page 41 line 16 – Page 42 line 6, and Page 43 line 11 – Page 45 line 26 (syntax for each tile partitions (Page 43 lines 11 – 30) and processing regions / tile partitions (Kim and Jia) with NNs sized based on region size to process (Page 45 lines 1 – 26)) combinable with specific information such as Kim Figure 4 as well as Paragraphs 143 – 149 (enabling partitioning into tiles and tile size information) and 326 – 330 (tile header information and included tables)], and wherein the multiple partitions are independently coded or dependently coded [Jia Figures 14 – 16 (see captions) and 21 – 22 as well as Page 22 lines 32 – Page 23 line 18 and Page 43 lines 11 – 29 (independent / dependent processing or tiles / regions) combinable with Kim Figure 4 and Paragraphs 130 – 136 and 495 (independent / dependent tile processing)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Jia, Kim, and Ikonin.
Regarding claim 19, Jia teaches tile partition information and padding considerations of the partition to use as input to a neural network for encoding / decoding and further if the partitions are to be independently processed or not. Kim teaches syntax and padding considerations for tiles. Ikonin teaches the use of a synthesis transform to use in a neural network based encoding / decoding process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jia with the partitioning and padding considerations taught by Kim and the use of neural network synthesis transforms as taught by Ikonin. The combination teaches
wherein a flag for indicating whether the multiple partitions are independently coded or dependently coded is included in the bitstream [Jia Figures 14 – 16 (see captions) and 21 – 22 as well as Page 22 lines 32 – Page 23 line 18 and Page 43 lines 11 – 29 (independent / dependent processing or tiles / regions) combinable with Kim Figure 4 and Paragraphs 130 – 136 and 160 (flag suggesting independent / dependent tile processing encoding / decoding rendering obvious using such flag in Jia)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Jia, Kim, and Ikonin.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler W Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)270-5684. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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 at (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 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.
/TYLER W. SULLIVAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487