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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/5/25 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/21/25. These drawings are acceptable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-9 of U. S. Patent No. 1,220,6862 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 21 and 29 of the present application encompass claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 1,220,6862.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows in the Table below.
Instant Application
1,220,6862
21. (New) A system, comprising: a video decoder configured to receive and decode an input bitstream to reconstruct a picture from the input bitstream, and to generate a first vector comprising features extracted from the input bitstream by the video decoder and features determined by the video decoder during reconstruction of the picture; and a neural network configured to generate a second vector, based on the first vector, comprising one or more metrics representing a predicted quality of the picture reconstructed by the video decoder.
1. A system, comprising: a video decoder configured to receive and decode an input bitstream to reconstruct a picture from the input bitstream, and to generate a first vector comprising features extracted from the input bitstream by the video decoder and features determined by the video decoder during reconstruction of the picture; and a neural network configured to generate a second vector, based on the first vector, comprising one or more metrics representing a predicted quality of the picture reconstructed by the video decoder,
wherein one or more parameters of the neural network are trained by: computing a first training vector based on a test bitstream that has been decoded, generating, using the video decoder, a second training vector comprising features extracted from the test bitstream and determined by the video decoder, generating, using the neural network, a third training vector based on the second training vector, computing a prediction loss between the first training vector and the third training vector, and updating the one or more parameters based on the prediction loss.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the cited steps as indicated in claim 21 of the instant US application since the omission/addition/alteration of the cited limitations would not have changed the process according to which the process of decoding with neural network. Therefore, the ordinary skilled artisan would have been also motivated to modify claim 21 of the cited instant US application by altering the step of decoding with neural network of patent 1,220,6862. Claim 29 of the instant application are analogous to double patenting of claim 9 of patent No. 1,220,6862 for the same reason as the claims discussed above. The cited altering elements would not interfere with the functionality of the steps previously claimed and would perform the same function. In re Karlson, 136, USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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)(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) 21, 25, 29, 33 and 37-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 2013/0293725).
Regarding claim 21, Zhang discloses a system (see 100 in fig. 1), comprising: a video decoder (see 107 in fig. 1) configured to receive and decode an input bitstream (see bitstream to 107 in fig. 1) to reconstruct a picture (see reconstructed video from 107 in fig. 1) from the input bitstream, and to generate a first vector (see 511-514 in fig. 5) comprising features extracted from the input bitstream by the video decoder (see 511-514 in fig. 5) and features determined by the video decoder during reconstruction of the picture (see reconstructed video from 107 in fig. 1); and a neural network (see 530 in fig. 5; e.g. see ¶ [0040]) configured to generate a second vector (see 520 in fig. 5), based on the first vector, comprising one or more metrics representing a predicted quality of the picture reconstructed by the video decoder (see QoE Score in fig. 5).
Regarding claims 25 and 33, Zhang further discloses wherein the features determined by the video decoder during reconstruction of the picture comprise at least one of a percentage of intra-coded blocks in the picture (e.g. see ¶ [0005]),
Regarding claim 29, the claim(s) recite a method analogous limitations to claim 21, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 37, Zhang further discloses comprising: determining a classification of the picture (e.g. see ¶ [0031]); and switching the neural network used to generate the second vector based on the classification (e.g. see ¶ [0006]).
Regarding claim 38, Zhang further discloses wherein the classification of the picture comprises a content category (e.g. see ¶ [0006]).
Regarding claim 39, Zhang further discloses wherein the first vector comprises the classification of the picture (e.g. see ¶ [0026]).
Regarding claim 40, Zhang further discloses wherein the input bitstream comprises the classification of the picture (e.g. see ¶ [0026]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Claims 22-24, 26-28, 30-32 and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Karabutov et al. (US 2023/0412807).
Regarding claims 22 and 30, although Zhang discloses wherein the video decoder is configured to extract the features from the input bitstream by parsing elements in the input bitstream (see 511-514 in fig. 5), it is noted that Zhang does not provide the particular wherein the parsing elements is parsing syntax elements.
However, Karabutov disclose a video coding/decoding system wherein the parsing elements is parsing syntax elements (see 366 in fig. 23).
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Karabutov teachings of the well-known syntax signaling into Zhang signaling for the benefit of properly decoding industries standard video compression.
Regarding claims 23 and 31, the references further discloses wherein the syntax elements comprise at least one of sequence parameter sets, picture parameter sets, video parameter sets, picture headers, slice headers (e.g. see Karabutov ¶ [0179]), adaptation parameter sets, or supplemental enhancement information messages.
Regarding claims 24 and 32, the references further discloses wherein the features extracted from the input bitstream comprise at least one of
Regarding claims 26 and 34, Zhang does not disclose wherein the one or more metrics representing the predicted quality of the reconstructed picture comprise at least one of a peak signal noise ratio, a structural similarity index measure, a multiscale similarity index measure, a video multimethod assessment fusion, or a mean opinion score.
However, Karabutov disclose a video coding/decoding system wherein the one or more metrics representing the predicted quality of the reconstructed picture comprise at least one of a peak signal noise ratio (e.g. see ¶ [0118]).
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Karabutov teachings of the well-known metric to represent predicted quality into Zhang perceptual quality prediction for the benefit of accuracy of the disparity estimation.
Regarding claims 27 and 35, Zhang does not disclose wherein an output layer of the neural network is configured to generate root-mean-squared-error values.
However, Karabutov disclose a video coding/decoding system wherein an output layer of the neural network is configured to generate root-mean-squared-error values (e.g. see ¶ [0118]).
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Karabutov teachings of the well-known metric to represent predicted quality into Zhang perceptual quality prediction for the benefit of accuracy of input reconstruction.
Regarding claims 28 and 36, the references further discloses wherein the root-mean-squared-error values are converted into peak signal noise ratio values (e.g. see Karabutov ¶ [0118]).
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Manuel et al. (US 2022/0408078), discloses method for assessing video quality.
2. Kim et al. (US 11,288,770), discloses artificial intelligence coding and decoding.
3. Pu et al. (US 11,250,546), discloses image distortion correction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD T TORRENTE whose telephone number is (571)270-3702. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6:45-3:15 pm.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2988. 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.
/RICHARD T TORRENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485