FLOW-AGNOSTIC NEURAL VIDEO COMPRESSION

DETAILED ACTION This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for” in claims 11,12,14,15: Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joshi et al. (US 2020/0186808 A1). Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Joshi et al. (US 2020/0186808 A1). Claim Interpretation 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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for” in claims 11,12,14,15: Re 11. , Joshi discloses An apparatus for video processing using an artificial neural network (ANN), comprising: means for receiving, by the ANN, a video and a plurality of previously reconstructed frames of a video, each previously reconstructed frames of the plurality of previously reconstructed frames being motion-compensated; means for generating, by the ANN, a reference frame from the plurality of previously reconstructed frames of the video based on a difference between at least two of the plurality of previously reconstructed frames; means for extracting, by the ANN, a first set of features of a current frame of the video and a second set of features of the reference frame of the video; means for determining, by the ANN, an estimate of correlation features between the first set of features of the current frame and the second set of features of the reference frame; and means for generating, by the ANN, a prediction of the current frame of the video based on the estimate of the correlation features. 12. The apparatus of claim 11, further comprising means for determining the estimate of correlation features using fully convolutional operators of the ANN. 14. The apparatus of claim 11, further comprising: means for entropy encoding the estimated correlation features to form an encoded estimated correlation features; and means for transmitting to a decoder, the encoded estimated correlation features. 15. The apparatus of claim11, further comprising: means for encoding the difference between the current frame of the video and the prediction of the current frame of the video to form an encoded difference; and means for transmitting the encoded difference to a decoder, the decoder generating a reconstruction based on the encoded difference. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof: PNG media_image1.png 825 676 media_image1.png Greyscale If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 35 USC § 101 – Positive Statement MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019] (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, last para:. In contrast, other cases have found that additional elements are more than "apply it" or are not "mere instructions" when the claim recites a technological solution [claim 1’s smaller “feature1”] to a technological problem [“limited resources”-“warping” applicant’s disclosure [0004]. In DDR Holdings, the court found that the additional elements did amount to more than merely instructing that the abstract idea should be applied on the Internet. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1107 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The claims at issue specified how interactions with the Internet were manipulated to yield a desired result—a result that overrode the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink. 773 F.3d at 1258; 113 USPQ2d at 1106. In BASCOM, the court determined that the claimed combination of limitations did not simply recite an instruction to apply the abstract idea of filtering content on the Internet. BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, the claim recited a "technology based solution" of filtering content on the Internet that overcome the disadvantages of prior art filtering systems. 827 F.3d at 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d at 1243. Finally, in Thales Visionix, the particular configuration of inertial sensors and the particular method of using the raw data from the sensors was more than simply applying a law of nature. Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49, 121 USPQ2d 1898, 1902 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The court found that the claims provided a system and method that "eliminate[d] many ‘complications’ inherent in previous solutions for determining position and orientation of an object on a moving platform." In other words, the claim recited a technological solution to a technological problem. Id. Thus claims 1-15 are statutory under 35 USC 101 at step 2A, prong 2. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joshi et al. (US 2020/0186808 A1). Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Joshi et al. (US 2020/0186808 A1). Re 1., Joshi discloses A processor-implemented method for video processing using an artificial neural network (ANN)2, comprising: receiving {{3 a video (or likewise “[0061] A network 104 can connect the transmitting station 102 and a receiving station 106 for encoding and decoding of the video stream.”) {{{th S) 4 (via fig. 1: PNG media_image2.png 1126 480 media_image2.png Greyscale ); generating {{{ PNG media_image3.png 515 986 media_image3.png Greyscale ); extracting {{{ PNG media_image4.png 1286 835 media_image4.png Greyscale ); determining {{{ PNG media_image5.png 1163 849 media_image5.png Greyscale ); and generating {{{ “[0124] Which block features are calculated (e.g. generated) and used as input to the machine-learning model can depend on the encoding mode. For example, different block features can be extracted (e.g., calculated, determined, etc.) for an encoding mode related to a transform block than an encoding mode related to a prediction block. Non-limiting examples of calculated block features are provided below. All, a subset, or other block features can be used inputs.” Via said fig. 10: PNG media_image4.png 1286 835 media_image4.png Greyscale ). 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024] "All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). Examiners must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 958-59, 2023 USPQ2d 795 (Fed. Cir. 2023), the court found the claims were improperly narrowed based on a preferred embodiment to sacral anatomy or sacral neuromodulation, whereas the patent claims made no reference to sacral anatomy or sacral neuromodulation. Thus, the relevant prior art was improperly limited to a narrow subset of claim scope. See also MPEP § 2111 et seq. It is the subject matter of the properly construed claim that must be examined. The determination of whether particular language is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002).[AltContent: rect] As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms (“and”5) as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language ( “and”6 via: “a video and a plurality of previously reconstructed frames of a video) that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive [I am adding to the list non-restrictive comma phrases: -- , by the ANN,7 -- ): • preamble (MPEP § 2111.02); • clauses such as "adapted to," adapted for," "wherein," and "whereby" (MPEP § 2111.04, subsection I); • contingent limitations (MPEP § 2111.04, subsection II); • printed matter (MPEP § 2111.05); and • functional language associated with a claim term (MPEP § 2181). Re 2., Joshi discloses The processor-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising determining the estimate of correlation features using fully convolutional operators {{{of the ANN}}} (or likewise “ In an example, the machine-learning model can be a neural-network model, which can be a convolutional neural-network (CNN) model.” [0049] last S). Re 3., Joshi discloses The processor-implemented method of claim 1{{{, i8. 2111.04 "Adapted to," "Adapted for," "Wherein," "Whereby," and Contingent Clauses [R-10.2019] I. "ADAPTED TO," "ADAPTED FOR," "WHEREIN," and "WHEREBY" Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses; (B) "wherein" clauses (i.e., “in which the estimate of correlation features provides an indication of motion between the current frame and the reference frame) ; and (C) "whereby" clauses. The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose9 to the manipulative steps"). Re 4., Joshi discloses The processor-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: entropy encoding (or likewise “The quantized transform coefficients are then entropy encoded by the entropy encoding stage 408.” [0077] 3rd) the estimate (or said likewise “[0131] Horizontal and vertical correlation block features: These features estimate the variance in the horizontal and the vertical direction within the input block.“) of correlation features to form an encoded estimate10 of correlation features (via fig. 4:408: “ENTROPY ENCODER”: PNG media_image6.png 509 993 media_image6.png Greyscale ); and transmitting to a decoder, the encoded estimate of correlation features. Re 5., Joshi discloses The processor-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: encoding the difference between the current frame of the video and the prediction of the current frame of the video to form an encoded difference11 (or likewise “ [0028] As is known, inter-prediction (also referred to as motion-compensated prediction) may include encoding a current block from a current frame by encoding the difference between the current block and a prediction block.” Via fig. 4:402: “INTRA/INTER PREDICTION”: PNG media_image7.png 499 998 media_image7.png Greyscale ); and Scyfarth No. 72178-006718 1 transmitting the encoded difference to a decoder, the decoder generating a reconstruction based on the encoded difference. Claim 6 rejected/interpreted like claim 1: Re 6., Joshi discloses An apparatus for video processing using an artificial neural network (ANN), comprising: at least one memory (fig. 2:214: “STORAGE”); and at least one processor (fig. 2: 202: “PROCESSOR”) coupled to the at least one memory, the at least one processor configured to: receive, by the ANN, a video and a plurality of previously reconstructed frames of a video, each previously reconstructed frames of the plurality of previously reconstructed frames being motion-compensated; generate, by the ANN, a reference frame from the plurality of previously reconstructed frames of the video based on a difference between at least two of the plurality of previously reconstructed frames; extract, by the ANN, a first set of features of a current frame of the video and a second set of features of the reference frame of the video; determine, by the ANN, an estimate of correlation features between the first set of features of the current frame and the second set of features of the reference frame; and generate, by the ANN, a prediction of the current frame of the video based on the estimate of the correlation features. Claim 7 rejected like claim 2: Re 7., Joshi discloses The apparatus of claim 6, in which the at least one processor is further configured to determine the estimate of correlation features using fully convolutional operators of the ANN. Claim 8 rejected like claim 3: Re 8., Joshi discloses The apparatus of claim 6, in which the estimate of correlation features provides an indication of motion between the current frame and the reference frame. Claim 9 rejected like claim 4: Re 9., Joshi discloses The apparatus of claim 6, in which the at least one processor is further configured to: entropy encode the estimate of correlation features to form an encoded estimate of correlation features; and transmitting to a decoder, the encoded estimated correlation features. Claim 10 rejected like claim 5: Re 10., Joshi discloses The apparatus of claim 6, inwhich the at least one processor is further configured to: encode the difference between the current frame of the video and the prediction of the current frame of the video to form an encoded difference; and transmit the encoded difference to a decoder, the decoder generating a reconstruction based on the encoded difference. Claim 11 rejected/interpreted like claims 1,6: Re 11. , Joshi discloses An apparatus for video processing using an artificial neural network (ANN), comprising: means for receiving, by the ANN, a video and a plurality of previously reconstructed frames of a video, each previously reconstructed frames of the plurality of previously reconstructed frames being motion-compensated; means for generating, by the ANN, a reference frame from the plurality of previously reconstructed frames of the video based on a difference between at least two of the plurality of previously reconstructed frames; means for extracting, by the ANN, a first set of features of a current frame of the video and a second set of features of the reference frame of the video; means for determining, by the ANN, an estimate of correlation features between the first set of features of the current frame and the second set of features of the reference frame; and means for generating, by the ANN, a prediction of the current frame of the video based on the estimate of the correlation features (via the means for of fig. 2: PNG media_image8.png 728 1144 media_image8.png Greyscale ). Claim 12 rejected like claim 2: Re 12., Joshi discloses The apparatus of claim 11, further comprising means for determining the estimate of correlation features using fully convolutional operators of the ANN. Claim 13 rejected like claim 3: Re 13., Joshi discloses The apparatus of claim 11, in which the estimated correlation features provide an indication of motion between the current frame and the reference frame. Claim 14 rejected like claim 4: Re 14., Joshi discloses The apparatus of claim 11, further comprising: means for entropy encoding the estimated correlation features to form an encoded estimated correlation features; and means for transmitting to a decoder, the encoded estimated correlation features. Claim 15 rejected like claim 5: Re 15., Joshi discloses The apparatus of claim11, further comprising: means for encoding the difference between the current frame of the video and the prediction of the current frame of the video to form an encoded difference; and means for transmitting the encoded difference to a decoder, the decoder generating a reconstruction based on the encoded difference. Conclusion The prior art “nearest to the subject matter defined in the claims” (MPEP 707.05) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following table lists several references that are relevant to the subject matter claimed and disclosed in this Application. The references are not relied on by the Examiner, but are provided to assist the Applicant in responding to this Office action: Citation Relevance IDS cited Li et al. (Deep Contextual Video Compression) Li teaches “correlated condition”-“feature domain” for encoding frame Xt: PNG media_image9.png 526 1047 media_image9.png Greyscale “To provide richer and more correlated condition for encoding xt, the context is in the feature domain with higher dimensions.” as the closest to the claimed “correlation features” of claim 1. IDS cited Nemirofsky et al. (US 2020/0329233 A1) PNG media_image10.png 588 420 media_image10.png Greyscale Nemirofsky teaches “correlation”-“Features (2705)”: [0054] FIG. 17 (2700) shows a Feature-Based Coding Mode Architecture that determines a division between Intra-prediction and Inter-prediction (2705) based upon image features that cascade across scales and resolution as a function of MB (2703) or CU partitioning (2704). The Coding Mode Selector (2701) receives information from Enhances Features (890; HyperData FIG. 9), and after analysis, this resulting mode and probability are delivered to SmartEncoding (904) through networks, threads, or memory (2702) that may be cached, stored, or temporally/spatially utilized as part of an encoding, decoding, or analysis application. Coding Mode Selector (2701) utilizes Coding Databases (905) and Enhanced Feature Detection Unit (890) that contain previous detected and calculated feature parameters, structures, networks, and scales, which can be general (902) or specific (903). These are combined to determine objects types, dynamics, and saliency components used within the SmartData™ representation and HyperData Compression™. Features (2705) can be used to estimate temporal and spatial correlations, as well as motion estimation. Motion estimation is limited by a causal representation (object-background-frame motion are constrained), including translational and rotational dynamics. ROI (Region of Interest) detection and dynamics are aided by modeling and the use of real-world activity analysis as described in Independent Activity Analysis™. These technologies not only support encoding, transmission, and decoding but provide a basis and reference frame for Artificial Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR). as the closest to the claimed “correlation features” of claim 1. IDS cited Le et al. (MobileCodec: Neural Inter-frame Video Compression on Mobile Devices): an X-reference Le teaches “correlation module Mc”-“features ft-1 and ft” via page 327, lcol, 1st para and fig. 1: PNG media_image11.png 813 1105 media_image11.png Greyscale as the closest to the claimed “correlation features” of claim 1. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS ROSARIO whose telephone number is (571)272-7397. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM EST. 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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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. /DENNIS ROSARIO/Examiner, Art Unit 2676 /Henok Shiferaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676 1 feature: a prominent or distinctive part or aspect, as of a landscape, building, book, etc, wherein part is defined: an amount less than the whole; bit, wherein less is defined: to a smaller extent or degree (Dictionary.com) 2 MEANING AND PURPOSE I of claim 1 is “for video processing using an artificial neural network (ANN)”. 3 Regarding the bracketed/crossed text that “does not limit the scope of a claim” see MPEP 2143.03, reproduced below 4 Regarding the bracketed/crossed text that “does not limit the scope of a claim” see MPEP 2143.03, reproduced below 5 and: (used to connect [Markush] alternatives). (Dictionary.com) 6 and: (used to connect [Markush] alternatives). (Dictionary.com) 7 To make limiting include a present participle: , by using the ANN,-- as indicated in applicant’s preamble: “using an artificial neural network (ANN)” such that the present participle gives order to the sequential elements of claim 1 and makes the ANN participate with/make a contribution to the action(s) of claim 1. 8 Regarding the bracketed/crossed text being not “a limitation in a claim… where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps” see MPEP 2111.04, reproduced above 9 MEANING AND PURPOSE I of claim 1 is “for video processing using an artificial neural network (ANN)”. 10 MEANING AND PURPOSE II of claim 4 is “to form an encoded estimate”. 11 MEANING AND PURPOSE III of claim 5 is “to form an encoded difference”