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 .
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)(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) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Deshpande (US 2025/0378588).
Regarding claims 19-20,
Deshpande teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of visual media data which is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus (Deshpande: Fig 1; [0344]-[0356]),
The only portion of the language in claims 19-20 that is given patentable weight is the preamble limitation of claim 19, because this is an article of manufacture. All of the other limitations of claims 19-20 body are not given patentable weight. This is because there is no functional relationship between the bitstream and any related computer.
According to MPEP 2111.05, “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated.” Furthermore, for machine-readable media, “When determining the scope of a claim directed to a computer-readable medium containing certain programming, the examiner should first look to the relationship between the programming and the intended computer system. Where the programming performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated, a functional relationship will be found. For instance, a claim to computer-readable medium programmed with attribute data objects that perform the function of facilitating retrieval, addition, and removal of information in the intended computer system, establishes a functional relationship such that the claimed attribute data objects are given patentable weight. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035. However, where the claim as a whole is directed to conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system, and/or the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. For example, a claim to a memory stick containing tables of batting averages, or tracks of recorded music, utilizes the intended computer system merely as a support for the information. Such claims are directed toward conveying meaning to the human reader rather than towards establishing a functional relationship between recorded data and the computer.”
The body limitations in claims 19-20 perform no function with respect to a computer with which it is associated. In other words, the body limitations in claims 19-20 do not perform a function or cause the associated computer to perform a function. A generating method has already taken place. The bitstream does not perform a generating method. The data stream also does not cause an associated computer to perform a generating method.
Furthermore, the limitations in claims 19-20 convey a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system. The message is a bitstream that is to be seen by a human reader after decoding. The bitstream in claims 19-20 merely serves as a support for information and data. Additionally, any computer-readable medium that stores such a bitstream is merely a support for data
In order for the body of claims 19-20 to be given patentable weight, Examiner suggest amending the claim to recite function, such as the function in claims 1-18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-2, 6-13 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande et al. (US 2025/0378588) in view of Yin et al. (US 2025/0211799).
Regarding claim 1,
Deshpande teaches:
A method for processing visual media data, comprising:
performing a conversion between visual media data comprising a current picture to which a filtering process using a neural-network post-filter (NNPF) is applied and a bitstream of the visual media data according to a rule (Deshpande: Fig 1; [0013]; [0217]-[0230]; neural-network post-processing filter for post-processing filtering of the current picture);
wherein the rule specifies that a neural-network post-filter characteristics (NNPFC) is included in a NNPFC supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message (Deshpande: [0217]; SEI message specifies the neural-network post-processing filter that used for post-processing filtering of the current picture), and
wherein a first value of the NNPFC indicates the NNPF comprises increasing or decreasing a width or a height of the current picture (Deshpande: [0221]-[0223]; For purposes of interpretation of the neural-network post-filter characteristics SEI message, the following variables are specified; SubWidthC; SubHeightC; CroppedYPic[y][x]; CroppedCbPic[y][x]; CroppedCrPic[y][x]).
Deshpande fails to teach:
NNPFC purpose
Yin teaches:
wherein the rule specifies that a neural-network post-filter characteristics (NNPFC) purpose is included in a NNPFC supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message (Yin: [0070]; NNPF SEI message with nnpf_purpose), and
wherein a first value of the NNPFC purpose indicates a purpose of the NNPF comprises increasing or decreasing a width or a height of the current picture (Yin: [0082]; neural-network post-filter to increase the width or height of a decoded picture (nnpfc_purpose equal to 2, 3, or 4) used to derive the input tensor of a neural-network post-filter to improve video quality (nnpfc_purpose equal to 1)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Yin with Deshpande. Using the NNPFC purpose of Yin would benefit the Deshpande by increasing coding efficiency and/or quality. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, using a NNPFC purpose, to a known device ready for improvement, the Deshpande device, to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2,
Deshpande in view of Yin teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein when the NNPFC purpose has the first value, at least one the following conditions is true:
a) a width of an NNPF generated picture for the current picture is not equal to the width of the current picture (Deshpande: [0222]-[0223]; Yin: [0082]); or
b) a height of an NNPF generated picture for the current picture is not equal to the height of the current picture (Deshpande: [0222]-[0223]; Yin: [0082]).
Regarding claim 6,
Deshpande in view of Yin teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the rule specifies that a second value of the NNPFC purpose indicates the purpose of the NNPF comprises chroma upsampling for the current picture (Deshpande: [0174]-0176]; [0305]-[0308]; Yin: [0078]-[0081]).
Regarding claim 7,
Deshpande in view of Yin teaches:
The method of claim 6, wherein the chroma upsampling comprises upsampling from a 4:2:0 chroma format to a 4:2:2 chroma format or a 4:4:4 chroma format (Deshpande: [0174]-0176]; [0305]-[0308]).
Regarding claim 8,
Deshpande in view of Yin teaches:
The method of claim 6, wherein the chroma upsampling comprises upsampling from a 4:2:2 chroma format to a 4:4:4 chroma format (Deshpande: [0174]-0176]; [0305]-[0308]).
Regarding claim 9,
Deshpande in view of Yin teaches:
The method of claim 6, wherein when the NNPFC purpose has the second value, a value of a chroma upsampling flag is equal to one (Yin: [0078]-[0081]).
Regarding claim 10,
Deshpande in view of Yin teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the visual media data into the bitstream (Deshpande: Fig 1; [0344]-[0356]; Yin: [0014]-[0020]).
Regarding claim 11,
Deshpande in view of Yin teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the visual media data from the bitstream (Deshpande: Fig 1; [0344]-[0356]; Yin: [0014]-[0020]).
Regarding claims 12-13 and 16-17, Deshpande in view of Yin teaches the system and CRM limitations of these claims as shown above with respect to claims 1-2 and 6-11 (Deshpande: Fig 1; [0344]-[0356]; Yin: [0014]-[0020]; [0136])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-5, 14-15 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M PONTIUS whose telephone number is (571)270-7687. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-4.
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, Sath V Perungavoor can be reached at (571)272-7455. 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.
/JAMES M PONTIUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488