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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 (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 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) 1, 2, 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2023111384 A1 ZHANG HONGLEI et al. (hereafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses A decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus (Fig.2, P.2 lines 6-10), comprising: obtaining optimization information for performing a task from a bitstream (Fig.6, P.40 lines 27-33, P.41 line 10-16, syntax element moderator control information or moderator control SEI message is the optimization information for a task); and based on the optimization information, determining at least one of a type of the task, a latency characteristic of the task, or a frequency characteristic of information encoded in the bitstream (P.41 line 36-P.42 line 2, index of enumerated list of machine tasks is type of tasks).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses The decoding method of Claim 1, wherein the optimization information includes identification information for the task, and wherein the type of the task is determined as a type indicated by the identification information among candidate types of the task (P.41 line 36-P.42 line 2).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses The decoding method of Claim 1, wherein the optimization information has an NAL unit type identical to at least one parameter set in the bitstream (P.14 lines 5-27, P.40 lines 6-13).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses The decoding method of Claim 1, wherein the optimization information has a dedicated NAL unit type in the bitstream (P.40 lines 6-13).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang discloses The decoding method of Claim 1, wherein the optimization information has an NAL unit type identical to supplemental enhancement information (SEI) in the bitstream (P.40 lines 6-13).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang discloses The decoding method of Claim 11, wherein the optimization information is obtained based on a payload type (payloadType) of the SEI being a predetermined value (p.40 lines 6-25, P.41 lines 21-27).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang discloses An encoding method performed by an encoding apparatus, comprising: determining at least one of a type of a task, a latency characteristic of the task, or a frequency characteristic of information encoded in a bitstream (P.40 line 6-P.41 line 20); and encoding optimization information including a result of the determination into the bitstream (P.44 lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang discloses A computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream generated by the encoding method of Claim 13 (P.9 lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 15, see the rejection for claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, and further in view of WO 2022213139 A1 ROSEWARNE.
Regarding claim 3, ROSEWARNE teaches The decoding method of Claim 1, wherein the optimization information includes an optimization flag indicating whether optimization is performed for the task, and wherein the identification information is obtained based on the optimization flag indicating that optimization is performed for the task ([173], [193]).
Therefore 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 decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus disclosed by Zhang to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of ROSEWARNE , in order to provide a method, apparatus and system for encoding and decoding tensors from a convolutional neural network, as identified by ROSEWARNE.
Claim(s) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, and further in view of US 20210105466 A1 Ganesh; Brinda et al. (hereafter Ganesh).
Regarding claim 4, Ganesh teaches The decoding method of Claim 1, wherein the optimization information includes information on a latency level of the task, and wherein the latency characteristic of the task is determined based on the information on the latency level ([22]).
Therefore 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 decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus disclosed by Zhang to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Ganesh, in order to improve the efficiency of coder systems, as identified by Ganesh.
Regarding claim 5, Ganesh teaches The decoding method of Claim 4, wherein the information on the latency level includes maximum latency information and latency level information ([01], [22]).
Regarding claim 6, Ganesh teaches The decoding method of Claim 1, wherein the optimization information includes frequency information on the encoded information, and wherein the frequency characteristic of the encoded information is determined based on the frequency information ([22]-[23]).
Regarding claim 7, Ganesh teaches The decoding method of Claim 6, wherein the frequency information includes at least one of higher threshold frequency information or lower threshold frequency information ([22]-[23]).
Regarding claim 8, Ganesh teaches The decoding method of Claim 7, wherein the frequency information further includes frequency level information of the encoded information, wherein the lower threshold frequency information is included in the frequency information based on the frequency level information indicating a band pass filter or a low pass filter, and wherein the higher threshold frequency information is included in the frequency information based on the frequency level information indicating a band pass filter or a high pass filter ([23], [59]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20250294134 A1, US 12108084 B2, US 20220007084 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY Y. LI whose telephone number is (571)270-3671. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday (8:30 AM- 4:30 PM) 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, 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.
/TRACY Y. LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights