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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended claims 1, 2, 4, 9 – 11, 15 – 17 and 20 beyond formalities and 112 Rejections.
Applicant canceled claims 7 – 8, 13 – 14, and 18 – 19.
Applicant added new claims 21 – 26.
The pending claims are 1 – 6, 9 – 12, 15 – 17, and 20 – 26 [Page 9 lines 1 – 9].
Applicant amended the Abstract to address Examiner’s Specification Objections [Page 9 lines 10 – 16].
Applicant amended the claims to address Examiner’s 112(b) and 112(d) Rejections [Page 9 line 17 – Page 10 lines 13]. The Examiner reconsiders the 112 Rejections in view of the amended claims.
Applicant's arguments filed April 15th, 2026 [Page 10 lines 1 – 6] have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant cites Paragraphs 178 and 249 for support of the term “visual data unit” [Page 10 lines 1 – 6], but the paragraphs listed do not use the term “visual data unit” nor does any Paragraph in the Originally filed Specification. Thus, the argument is unpersuasive as the features relied upon are not reasonable claimed as there is no antecedent basis to the Specification or Specification support for the claimed “visual data unit”.
While the Applicant’s points may be understood, the Examiner respectfully disagrees; thus the Rejection is maintained.
Applicant does NOT comment on Examiner’s Functional Analysis section. The Examiner in view of the amended claims keeps the section.
Applicant's arguments filed April 15th, 2026 [Page 10 line 14 – Page 15 line 20] have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner’s Note: The copied and pasted portions of references are not included in the line counts provided.
First, the Applicant recites the references against the claims [Page 10 lines 14 – 17]. And makes comments regarding an obviousness-type prior art Rejection [Page 10 line 18 – Page 11 line 3].
Second, the Applicant contends the references do not render obvious features claims [Page 11 lines 4 – 9], recites features of amended independent claim 1 [Page 11 lines 10 – 22], and broadly alleges Specification support exists for the amendment [Page 11 lines 23 – 29]. The Examiner notes the syntax element / flag allegedly covered by the claims (“region_residual_in_its_own_substream_flag”) is NOT taught at all in the Specification.
Third, the Applicant argues Jia does not render obvious features claimed and provides their interpretation of Jia [Page 12 line 1 – Page 14 line 3]. Applicant’s emphasis in Jia is not helpful and difficult to see / understand. When Jia is properly considered as a whole, the Examiner notes at least Jia Page 45 and Figures 21 – 22 has tile / partition information used to size the NNs (neural networks) where merely a layer of the NN is conditioned based on the partition size to process (see at least Page 54) where Kim was relied upon for signaling specific tile partitioning information as Jia conceptually partitions images into tiles for input to NN processing (e.g. Figure 15 – 19). Also, when considering Jia as a whole Page 26 describes CNN / NNs for partitions of image data with further description in Pages 54 – 55 which includes tile groups (e.g. Page 22 lines 25 – 31) are an obvious variants of the regions processed which affect a NN layer and its input as taught in Pages 53 – 54.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Fourth, the Applicant contends Kim does not render obvious features of the amended independent claims [Page 14 line 4 – Page 15 line 7]. The Examiner notes Kim renders obvious in at least the cited sections signaling of tile partition information and coding tiles independently or not to be used in combination with Jia and Ikonin in which adjustments to the NN are made based on block / tile partitioning.
Fifth, the Applicant contends Ikonin broadly does not render obvious features of the amended independent claims [Page 15 lines 8 – 11]. The Examiner observes though Ikonin elaborates on the teachings of Jia in which the inputs are conditions for a neural network layer based on the partition of the tile / block as in at least the cited portions (e.g. Paragraphs 233 – 240, 245 – 248, and 254 – 260). Thus, Ikonin renders obvious the features claimed. Additionally Ikonin in at least Paragraph 121 teaches the independent process to be combined with the signaling of Kim.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references [Regarding arguments towards Ikonin].
Sixth, the Applicant contends the claims are allowable for at least the reasons given [Page 15 lines 12 – 15] as well as the new claims are allowable [Page 15 lines 16 – 20].
While the Applicant’s points may be understood, the Examiner respectfully disagrees; thus the Rejection is maintained.
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 (mailed January 15th, 2026). 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 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 – 6, 9 – 12, 15 – 17, and 20 – 26 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 both encompassed (see the “and/or” for the encoding / decoding selection option) thus the claim has Indefinite metes and bounds as the steps of the claim have no distinction between such processes (the previous note was the Rejection would be over if ONE of the options was claimed, but not both simultaneously). 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 (additional support for the Indefinite meets and bounds claimed and encoder and decoder simultaneously).
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 – 6, 9 – 12, 16 – 17, and 21 – 26, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of their respective independent claims and thus are similarly Rejected.
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 – 6, 9 – 12, 16 – 17, and 21 – 26, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of their respective independent claims and thus are similarly Rejected.
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 – 6, 9 – 12, 15 – 17, and 20 – 26 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 20, see claim 15 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 21, see claim 16 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 22, see claim 3 which is the method performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 23, see claim 17 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 24, see claim 5 which is the method performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 25, see claim 6 which is the method performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 26, see claim 9 which is the method 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 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 21 – 26 (see at least reference characters 266, 366, and S2140) 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 53 line 25 – Page 54 line 25 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 such as in Page 53 line 25 – Page 54 line 25) with NNs sized based on region size to process (Page 45 lines 1 – 26 and Page 54 line 26 – Page 55 line 32 and Page 56 lines 15 – 33 (shape of region / tile to process affects input to the NN and layers used))); 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)],
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 such as in Page 53 line 25 – Page 54 line 25) with NNs sized based on region size to process (Page 45 lines 1 – 26 and Page 54 line 26 – Page 55 line 32 and Page 56 lines 15 – 33 (shape of region / tile to process affects input to the NN and layers used)) to combine with Ikonin) 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
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, Page 43 lines 11 – 29 (independent / dependent processing or tiles / regions), Page 54 lines 10 – 32 and Page 56 lines 13 – 33 (independently using NNs with syntax / signaling such independent processing of the tile) 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) and 495 (independent / dependent tile processing)], and
herein the conversion includes encoding the current visual data unit into the bitstream and/or decoding the current visual data unit from the bitstream [Jia Figures 1 – 3 (subfigures included see at least reference characters 20 and 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)].
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 or not [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 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights