DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 07/16/2026
In the filed response, Claims 9, 12, 19, and 20 have been amended, where Claim 9 is an independent claim. Further, Claims 7 and 15 have been canceled.
Accordingly, Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 07/16/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 5-7, filed 07/16/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections of the instant claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement (IDS) under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 07/16/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. After considering the IDS, a new ground of rejection is made in view of NPL document Han et al. “[FCM] CE4-related: QP-Adaptive Channel Truncation with Selective Learning Strategy”, International Organisation for Standarisation Organisation Internationale De Normalisation ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 4 MPEG VIDOE CODING, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 4 m70152 November 2024, Kemer, hereinafter referred to as Han, from the IDS filed on 07/16/2026. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claims, the examiner respectfully submits the work of Han, either alone or in combination, reasonably teaches and/or suggests the disclosed features of the instant claims. Please see office action below for details.
3. Additional prior art worth noting include the work of Kumakura et al. WO 2026141580 A1 (with reference to JP 2024-228519 – please see attached) See for e.g. ¶0085-¶0087 with respect to syntax element “truncates_features” which indicates whether the channel truncation is enabled or not, i.e. “a channel removal indication”. The feature map decoding methods of Kumakura allow for only packing/unpacking feature maps of active channels; hence, coding operations can be performed efficiently with minimal processing load (e.g. ¶0013-¶0015).
Also refer to Jung et al. WO 2026014898 A1 (with reference to PCT/KR2025/009896 and Priority Documents). Given the BRI of a channel removal indication, see for e.g. the syntax element “fsps_channel_truncation_flag” in for e.g. ¶0305. Please see PTO 892.
4. Applicant’s response and amendments related to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are acknowledged. As such, these rejections are withdrawn.
5. The Examiner is available to discuss the matters of this office action to help move the Instant Application forward. Please refer to the conclusion to this office action regarding scheduling interviews.
6. Accordingly, Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-11, 13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. “[FCM] CE4-related: QP-Adaptive Channel Truncation with Selective Learning Strategy”, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 4 m70152 November 2024, Kemer, hereinafter referred to as Han (from IDS dated 07/16/2026), in view of Kim et al. US 2024/0430454 A1, hereinafter referred to as Han and Kim, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, (Original) Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Han teaches and/or suggests “A decoding device comprising: a processor [See fig. 1 with respect to the FCTM Decoder] configured to: receive, in a bitstream, a channel removal indication [Han’s selective learning strategy provides a means for allowing efficient reduction of feature map size by trimming less important feature channels (abstract). Han’s QACT also truncates feature channels (abstract). Although an “indication” is not explicit, enabling these methods (e.g. Sect. 1) suggests a syntax element (e.g. a flag) must be signaled. As to a corresponding syntax element in the same or similar field of endeavor, please see Kim below], indicating whether a plurality of indices of coded channels is sorted [See Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of Han, along with figs. 3 and 5, regarding sorted feature channels in order of importance, where channels with lower indices have more important features. Channels with higher indices denote feature channels masked with zero for deactivation.]; based on the channel removal indication indicating that the plurality of indices of coded channels is sorted [Same citations in Han as above], receive a coded channel count indicating a first subset of a sorted plurality of indices of coded channels to be decoded from the bitstream [Although a “coded channel count” is not explicit, Han’s methods above indicate certain channels will be activated/deactivated (e.g. fig. 3). Activated channels are a subset of channels (Sect. 2.1) with lower indices that can be decoded (fig. 1). Han further describes examples of packed fused features according to the “number of channels” compressed (i.e. a coded channel count) (fig. 6). Kim below also provides support.]; and decode a feature tensor based on at least one coded channel indicated by the coded channel count.” [See fig. 2 of Han with respect to the 3D feature tensors] Han’s teachings above provide a means for enhancing FCTM with SLS and QACT (e.g. fig. 1). Although there is no explicit reference to signaling an “indicator” in the bitstream to enable both of these methods, Han’s disclosure is deemed relevant, since signaling such an indicator (e.g. flag) would be within the level of skill in the art. Nonetheless, in the spirit of compact prosecution, the work of Kim from the same or similar field of endeavor is further relied on to more explicitly teach and/or suggest a signaled indicator (i.e. “a channel removal indication”) as claimed given its BRI. [Since a “channel removal indication” merely indicates a sorting of indices of channels, please see figs. 15a and 15b of Kim with respect to feature channel reordering in the Feature sequence parameter set]. Kim also teaches/suggests “receive a coded channel count indicating a first subset of a sorted plurality of indices of coded channels to be decoded from the bitstream” [See Kim’s “Feature_channel_order_count[i]” in for e.g. figs. 16b and 18] Recognizing Kim’s feature coding methods (e.g. abstract), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the approach of Han for performing QP-Adaptive Channel Truncation with a Selective Learning Strategy (e.g. abstract), to add the methods of Kim in order to provide a means for improved coding efficiency based on correlation between channels and channel reordering (e.g. ¶0003-¶0005).
Regarding claim 2, Han and Kim teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Han however does not appear to address the features of claim 2. Kim on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein the channel removal indication is received in a feature sequence parameter set (FSPS).” [As previously noted in claim 1, please see figs. 15a and 15b of Kim with respect to feature channel reordering in the Feature sequence parameter set] The motivation for combining Han and Kim has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 3, Han and Kim teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 2, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Han however does not address the features of claim 3. Kim on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein the coded channel count is received in a feature parameter picture set (FPPS) associated with the FSPS.” [See figs. 16a and 16b with respect to feature channel order count in the Feature picture parameter set] The motivation for combining Han and Kim has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 5, Han and Kim teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Han however does not address the features of claim 5. Kim on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein a syntax element associated with the channel removal indication is to be decoded is an Exp-Golomb-coded syntax element. [See for e.g. ¶0122 of Kim] The motivation for combining Han and Kim has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 1 since encoding and decoding are inverse operations that enable compressed video data at an encoder to be decompressed and reconstructed at a decoder within a receiving device. As to the hardware, please see for e.g. 0¶315-¶0318 of Kim.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 3.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han, in view of Kim, and in further view of Sim et al. US 2024/0244236 A1, in view of Ahn et al. US 2025/0159177 A1 (with reference to WO 2023/158267 A1) hereinafter referred to as Sim.
Regarding claim 4, Han and Kim teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 3, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Han and Kim however do not appear to address the features of claim 4. Sim on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein the processor is further configured to parse a plurality of coded channels indicated by the coded channel count.” [See fig. 3, where the number of channels and data arrangement method information may be parsed in a feature map group header for decoding feature maps (e.g. ¶0055)]. Recognizing Sim’s feature coding methods, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the techniques of Han for performing QP-Adaptive Channel Truncation with a Selective Learning Strategy (e.g. abstract) along with Kim’s feature coding methods, to add Sim’s approach for selectively transmitting feature maps, while un-transmitted feature maps can be predicted and generated in order to help improve the video signal coding efficiency (e.g. ¶0020-¶0022).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 4.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han, in view of Kim, and in further view of Kim et al. US 2025/0061538 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kim 538.
Regarding claim 6, Han and Kim teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Han and Kim however do not appear to address the features of claim 6. Kim 538 on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein each channel of a second subset of the sorted plurality of indices of coded channels is filled with an average value that is determined based on a reduced feature tensor.” [In the context of PCA, see for e.g. ¶0099 and ¶0150 with respect to adding a mean value to a feature map] Recognizing the coding method of Kim 538 (e.g. abstract), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include said method with the feature coding methods of both Han and Kim, to facilitate reducing an amount of data to be coded by converting a multi-level feature group to a feature map (e.g. ¶0006).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 6.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han, in view of Kim, and in further view of Lee et al. US 2025/0133221 A1, hereinafter referred to as Lee.
Regarding claim 8, Han and Kim teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Han and Kim do not appear to address the features of claim 8. Lee on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein the channel removal indication is received as a part of feature restoration information.” [See method for arranging/rearranging channels of feature map latent expression with respect to figs. 28-31 of Lee] Recognizing the coding method of Lee (e.g. abstract), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include said method with the feature coding methods of both Han and Kim, to provide fine-tunable feature restoration based on a learned method in order to restore a multi-layer feature map from a feature map latent representation (e.g. abstract and ¶0182).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 20 is 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. In light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of records. The prior art of record, taken individually or in combination fail to explicitly teach or render obvious within the context of the respective independent claims the limitations:
20. (Currently Amended) The encoding device of claim 17, wherein the processor is configured to: compute a range value indicating channel importance for each of [[a]] the sorted plurality of coded channels indicated by the coded channel count sorted plurality of indices of coded channels; determine a threshold value based on the sorted plurality of coded channels; and based on the determined threshold value, determine the first subset of the sorted plurality of coded channels.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 07/16/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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 A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights