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 (Chinese PCT Application PCT/CN2022/125228 filed on October 13th, 2022).
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2 – 6, 9 – 11, and 13 – 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species I, II, IV, V, VI, and VII, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 27th, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, II, IV, V, VI, and VII in the reply filed on July 27th, 2026 is acknowledged.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The pending claims are 1, 7 – 8, 12, and 15 – 20.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 11th, 2025 was before after the mailing date of the First Action on the Merits (this Office Action). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract is a copy of claim 1 using legalese language instead of a series of brief sentences in narrative format describing the inventive concept. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On Page 37 line 4, the acronym “ReLU/PreLU” is not defined on first use.
On Page 45, item vi) is not described as to what test is performed not related to the other examples as the conditional appears to include options not previously discussed.
On Page 45 and Paragraph 123, the notation in vii2) is not clear (e.g. engineering or scientific notation used).
On Page 47, item vi) is not described as to what test is performed not related to the other examples as the conditional appears to include options not previously discussed.
On Page 50, the acronyms “PyTorch”, “DIV2K”, and “BVI-DVC” are not defined upon first use.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7 – 8, and 15 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5 – 6, 18 – 20, and 22 – 24 of copending Application No. 19/177,942 (reference application) [Claim set filed September 1st, 2026].
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Pending claim 1 is within the scope of Copending claims 1, 3, and 22 – 23 as the “process” includes RDO optimization (see at least co-pending Specification Paragraph 296) and copending claims 22 – 23 render obvious coding statistics using the NN filter selection with RDO considerations.
Pending claim 7 is rendered obvious in view of Copending claims 1, 5, and 24 as the “best coded” claimed relates to a NN filter as well thus the copending claim renders obvious the NN filter associated with the determination of “best” is thus best too.
Pending claim 8 is rendered obvious in view of Copending claims 1, 5, and 6 as the co-pending “partitioning” claimed is during the copending RDO process to select the NN filter.
Pending claim 15 is rendered obvious in view of Copending claims 1, 5, and 6 as the co-pending “partitioning” renders obvious subblock considerations to select the NN filter.
Pending claim 16 is rendered obvious in view of Copending claims 1, 5, and 6 as the co-pending “partitioning” renders obvious subblock considerations to select the NN filter or not using the filter based on RDO considerations.
Pending claim 17 is rendered obvious in view of Copending claim 16 regarding the encoding / decoding options for the “conversion” claimed.
Pending claim 18 is the apparatus performing the steps of Copending claim 1 and in view of Copending claim 18 which is the apparatus performing the steps of Copending claim 1 similar reasons apply as above.
Pending claim 19 is the program implementing the steps of Copending claim 1 and in view of Copending claim 19 which is the program implementing the steps of Copending claim 1 similar reasons apply as above.
Pending claim 20 is the bitstream generated through an encoding / conversion process similar to Copending claim 1 and in view of Copending claim 20 being the encoding method to generate a bitstream similar to Copending claim 1 similar reasons apply as above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand the obvious variants in terminology between the Copending and Pending claims as being similar scope (e.g. RDO is a process and the use of coding statistics / information) and to understand that only one option in claims needed to be covered to render obvious / be within scope of the Copending claim.
Claims 1, 7 – 8, 12, and 15 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 2, 4, 6 – 7, 13, and 16 – 20 of the U.S. Patent No. of US Application 18/622,405 (Claims filed April 27th, 2026 were allowed on July 21st, 2026).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Pending claim 1 is within the scope of Patented claim 1 as the pending RDO is computed with and without filtering and the “coding information” patented is an obvious variant of the “coding statistics” in the pending Application (in view of the examples given in the pending Specification) as the combinations claimed render obvious the variants between the claims.
Pending claim 7 is within the scope of Patented claims 1 and 2 and 4 as the Patented claims render obvious the “minimal value of the distortion” in the pending claim.
Pending claim 8 is within the scope of Patented claims 1, 6, and 7 where the comparison of the distortion metrics to find a minimum distortion for the filters with the parameters / information patented is an obvious variant of the approach in the pending application.
Pending claim 12 is within the scope of Patented claims 1 and 13 in which the Patented width and height threshold check renders obvious the same / similar condition in the pending claim.
Pending claim 15 is within the scope of Patented claims 1 and 16 as the Patented claims render obvious the process applied to subblocks / partitions of the target block.
Pending claim 16 is within the scope of Patented claims 1 and 16 as the Patented claims render obvious the process applied to subblocks / partitions of the target block with the same / similar tests in at least Patented claim 1.
Pending claim 17 is within the scope of Patented claims 1 and 17 as reciting same / similar limitations regarding “conversion”.
Pending claim 18 is the apparatus performing the steps of pending claim 1 and in view of Patented claim 18 which is the apparatus performing the steps of patented claim 1 similar reasons apply as above.
Pending claim 19 is the program implementing the steps of pending claim 1 and in view of Patented claim 19 which is the program implementing the steps of patented claim 1 similar reasons apply as above.
Pending claim 20 is the bitstream generated through an encoding / conversion process similar to pending claim 1 and in view of Patented claim 20 being the encoding method to generate a bitstream similar to Patented claim 1 similar reasons apply as above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand the obvious variants in terminology between the patented and Pending claims as being similar scope and to understand that only one option in claims needed to be covered to render obvious / be within scope of the Patented claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 7 – 8, 12, and 15 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claimed “for a conversion between …” has Indefinite metes and bound regarding the patentable weight to afford the feature (e.g. intended use recitation).
Regarding claim 1, the claim has Indefinite metes and bounds regarding “n is an integer” when only non-negative integers for n are considered (0 is a valid value for “n” in view of the Specification, but negative values of “n” are not supported).
Regarding claim 1, the claim has Indefinite metes and bound regarding which portions of the “whether to apply” feature / decision separated by the “or” the claimed “based on at least one of” is to limit.
Regarding claim 1, the claimed “coding mode” determination has Indefinite metes and bound as the RDO process is optional in the previous limitation making determinations with no output or decision made.
Regarding claims 18 – 20, see claim 1 which performs the steps of the claimed apparatus (claim 18), program (claim 19), and storing a generated bitstream (claim 20) and thus are similarly Rejected.
Regarding claims 7 – 8, 12, and 15 – 16, the dependent claims so not remedy the deficiency of the independent claim from which they depend and thus are similarly Rejected.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites "conversion" which has Indefinite metes and bounds as processes (e.g. encoding) and their inverse (e.g. decoding) are encompassed thus the claim has Indefinite metes and bounds as the steps of the claim have no distinction between such processes.
Should claim 17 be incorporated into claim 1, then the Rejection would be overcome.
Regarding claims 18 – 20, see claim 1 which performs the steps of the claimed apparatus (claim 18), program (claim 19), and storing a generated bitstream (claim 20) and thus are similarly Rejected.
Regarding claims 7 – 8, 12, and 15 – 16, the dependent claims so not remedy the deficiency of the independent claim from which they depend and thus are similarly Rejected.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is unclear what the options are to fulfill the “at least one of …” requirement as some appear reiterated from claim 1 which are additionally optional.
Regarding claim 7, the claims “minimum value of …” has Indefinite metes and bounds as not stating a comparison between claimed alternatives and further both alternatives are not required as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the claimed “derivation” has Indefinite metes and bounds as to the result of the derivation or what is to be derived and how.
Regarding claim 7, the claimed “multiplied a scaling factor” has Indefinite metes and bounds as to what is being multiplied by the scaling factor.
The term “best” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “best” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the claim does not cure the deficiencies in claim 7 from which it depends and thus is similarly Rejected.
Regarding claim 8, the claim has Indefinite metes and bounds regarding the “and/or” usage regarding the number of elements are required. Additionally, the “at least one of” recitation in the middle of the second “wherein if …” limitation has additional indefinite metes and bounds are to which elements are required and the relationship to the rest of the claim.
Regarding claim 8, the “p” and “q” values have Indefinite metes and bounds as the models as disclosed in the Specification generally are referred to with non-negative integers as negative integers would not be understood for enumeration to one of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, the values of “p” and “q” are not different, thus could refer to the same model.
Regarding claim 8, the claimed “approach” has Indefinite metes and bounds as to whatever an approach constitutes. Further, the “order” claimed has Indefinite metes and bounds as no mentions as to what is ordered is made in the claim.
Regarding
Regarding claim 8, the claims recite one-sided conditionals in a method claims thus have Indefinite patentable weight.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the combination" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the metes and bounds of the claim are Indefinite as to the number of conditions to meet and the relationship between the conditions.
Regarding claim 12, the claim has Indefinite metes and bounds regarding the quantities to “multiply” together and the threshold test applied.
Regarding claim 15, the claimed “whether to and/or …” has indefinite metes and bounds as to the decision being made and additional features.
Regarding claim 16, the claim has Indefinite metes and bounds regarding the result or “then” portion of the “wherein if” clause as the use of numerous “and/or” statement yield Indefinite bounds as to how many need to be met.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the at least one NN filter" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang, et al. (US Patent #11,930,215 B2 referred to as “Wang” throughout).
Regarding claim 20, Wang teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video [Wang Figures 1, 6, and 7 (see bitstream output of the encoder, memory elements in Figure 1 (e.g. reference characters 110 and 120), and bitstream input in decoder of Figure 7) as well as Column 7 lines 13 – 43 (bitstream generation), Column 23 lines 52 – 55 and Column 24 line 56 – Column 25 line 46 (storing encoded bitstreams on memories / computer readable media)] which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for video processing, wherein the method comprises [The method steps do not carry patentable weight as the claim is a product-by-process claim in which only the bitstream on the CRM (product) that was generated / created is given weight (see at least MPEP2113 I and II)]:
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.
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.
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, 7 – 8, 15 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, et al. (US PG PUB 2023/0051066 A1 referred to as “Li” throughout), and further in view of Wang, et al. (US Patent #11,930,215 B2 referred to as “Wang” throughout).
Examiner note: Dependent claims 7 – 8 and 15 – 16 are presented after independent claim 18 as the independent claims are presented first as best possible.
Regarding claim 20, while the claim is not given patentable weight as a product by process claim, should the claim be given patentable weight then the claim is similarly rejected to the method of claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, see claim 18 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 19, see claim 18 which is the apparatus performing the algorithm of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 17, Li teaches NN filter section with RDO considerations to select the NN filter. Wang teaches computing RDO based on using the filter or not and including NN filter models in RDO determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Li to incorporate Wang’s NN filter model selection processes including RDO modification and signaling with thresholds and scaling factors. The combination teaches
wherein the conversion includes encoding the video unit into the bitstream [Li Figures 5 and 27 – 28 (video encoder) as well as Paragraphs 388 – 398 (encoding to generate a bitstream) and 432 – 435 (encoder to generate a bitstream)], or wherein the conversion includes decoding the video unit from the bitstream [Li Figures 19 and 28 – 29 (video decoder) as well as Paragraphs 388 – 398 (encoding to generate a bitstream) and 432 – 435 (encoder to generate a bitstream)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Li and Wang.
Regarding claim 18, Li teaches NN filter section with RDO considerations to select the NN filter. Wang teaches computing RDO based on using the filter or not and including NN filter models in RDO determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Li to incorporate Wang’s NN filter model selection processes including RDO modification and signaling with thresholds and scaling factors. The combination teaches
a processor [Li Figures 22 and 25 – 29 (see at least reference characters 2602 and 2800) as well as Paragraphs 388 – 390 (processor and video processing hardware), 398 (processor based encoder / decoder), 430 – 435 and 486 – 489 (processor and memory implementation of programs)] and
a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to [Li Figures 22 and 25 – 29 (see at least reference characters 2602 and 2800) as well as Paragraphs 24 (computer readable media / medium is non-transitory), 388 – 390 (processor and video processing hardware), 398 (processor based encoder / decoder), 430 – 435 (non-transitory embodiments of computer readable media) and 486 – 489 (processor and memory implementation of programs)]:
determine, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video [Li Figures 5, 19, and 27 – 28 (video encoder / decoder) as well as Paragraphs 388 – 398 (encoding to generate a bitstream or decoding a bitstream representing video content) and 432 – 435 (encoder to generate a bitstream or decoding a bitstream of video content)], whether to apply at least one neural network (NN) filter model [Li Figures 15 and 22 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 216 – 224 (applying a NN based filter and selection of which filter to apply), 308 – 311 (selection of applying NN based filter with RDO considerations in an encoder) and 430 – 435 (applying NN filter determination); Wang Column 16 line 46 – Column 17 line 20 (signaling applying the filter (e.g. “value of filter On/Off” including NN based filter with RD-Cost / RDO cost considerations or “ApplyFilter is True”)] or determine a rate distortion cost during a rate distortion optimization (RDO) process of the video unit [Li Paragraphs 183 and 308 – 311 (RDO for selection of NN / CNN-based filter to apply and decision on to apply the filter at all), 361 – 365 (cost / RD cost of each filter), and 379 – 383 (selection of filter based on RD cost); Wang Column 16 line 46 – Column 17 line 20 (signaling applying the filter (e.g. “value of filter On/Off” including NN based filter with RD-Cost / RDO cost considerations) and Column 28 lines 20 – Column 29 line 20 (RDO for the NN determination and prediction mode to use)]
based on at least one of:
a distortion without NN filter model [Li Figure 22 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 183 (cost functions which are used for distortion determinations in combination with Paragraphs 304 and 321 – 330 (filtering to reduce distortion)), 363 – 367 (e.g. see Cost_0 which is the unfiltered cost not using NN based filtering in the RDO determination)],
a distortion with n-th NN filter model [Li Figure 22 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 183 (cost functions which are used for distortion determinations in combination with Paragraphs 304 and 321 – 330 (filtering to reduce distortion)), 363 – 367 (see at least Cost_1, Cost_2, and Cost_3, which cost / distortion using NN based filtering in the RDO determination)],
a combination of distortions of a plurality of NN filter models [Li Figure 22 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 183, 304, 321 – 330 (see above discussion on “distortion”) and 363 – 367 (e.g. see at least Cost_4 for a combination of filters in combination with Wang Column 16 line 59 – Column 16 line 20 (signaling applying the filter testing multiple filters in view of Wang Column 32 lines 1 – 9 and Column 34 lines 32 – 41)], or
coding statistics of the video unit [Li Figures 21 – 22 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 354 – 362 (NN / CNN based filtering applied based on statistics of the block / coding statistics as the obvious variants of the “statistics” claimed are readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art)], and
wherein n is an integer number [Li Figure 22 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 363 – 367 (see at least Cost_1, Cost_2, and Cost_3 where n = 1 – 3 at least renders obvious the pending limitation to one of ordinary skill in the art)];
determine a coding mode of the video unit based on a rate distortion optimization (RDO) criterion in the RDO process [See Li and Wang citations above for RDO citations and additionally Li Figures 15 and 21 – 22 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 201 and 221 (filter based on prediction mode in RDO / selection determination), 310 – 311, 328 – 334 (filtering for inter / intra boundaries – mode dependent filtering; derivation of the filters based on the prediction / coding mode used), 359 – 366 and 380 – 383 (filtering where the models are based on the prediction mode / selection of filter also selects the prediction / coding mode))]; and
perform the conversion based on the coding mode [Li Figures 5, 19, and 27 – 28 (video encoder / decoder with inter / intra prediction and NN based filtering) as well as Paragraphs 328 – 334 and 359 – 366 (NN based filtering with mode selection included in filter selection), 388 – 398 (encoding to generate a bitstream or decoding a bitstream representing video content) and 432 – 435 (encoder to generate a bitstream or decoding a bitstream of video content)].
The motivation to combine Wang with Li is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of filtering processing based on neural network techniques for video coding / decoding [Wang Column 1 lines 10 – 11 and 51 – 60] in order to improve compression efficiency [Wang Column 14 lines 41 – 59 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Li and Wang which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 7, Li teaches NN filter section with RDO considerations to select the NN filter. Wang teaches computing RDO based on using the filter or not and including NN filter models in RDO determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Li to incorporate Wang’s NN filter model selection processes including RDO modification and signaling with thresholds and scaling factors. The combination teaches
wherein the distortion in the RDO criterion [Li Paragraphs 183 and 308 – 311 (RDO for selection of NN / CNN-based filter to apply and decision on to apply the filter at all), 361 – 365 (cost / RD cost of each filter), and 379 – 383 (selection of filter based on RD cost); Wang Column 16 line 46 – Column 17 line 20 (signaling applying the filter (e.g. “value of filter On/Off” including NN based filter with RD-Cost / RDO cost considerations) and Column 28 lines 20 – Column 29 line 20 (RDO for the NN determination and prediction mode to use)] is a combination of one or more of:
the distortion with the n-th NN filter model [See previous citation and additionally Li Figure 22 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 183 (cost functions which are used for distortion determinations in combination with Paragraphs 304 and 321 – 330 (filtering to reduce distortion)), 363 – 367 (see at least Cost_1, Cost_2, and Cost_3, which cost / distortion using NN based filtering in the RDO determination)],
a minimal value of the distortion without NN filter model and the distortion with the n-th NN filter model [Li Figure 22 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 183 (cost functions which are used for distortion determinations in combination with Paragraphs 304 and 321 – 330 (filtering to reduce distortion)), 363 – 367 (e.g. see Cost_0 which is the unfiltered cost not using NN based filtering in the RDO determination) where Wang Column 17 lines 28 – 42, Column 22 line 51 – 60, and additionally Column 28 lines 43 – 58 render optimizing RDO in which in view of Column 20 lines 5 – 26 one of ordinary skill in the art would understand a least distortion is taught as an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art of the “minimal value” claimed],
a distortion with a best NN filter model [Li Paragraphs 183 and 308 – 311 (RDO for selection of NN / CNN-based filter to apply and decision on to apply the filter at all), 361 – 365 (cost / RD cost of each filter), and 379 – 383 (selection of filter based on RD cost); Wang Column 15 lines 8 – 32 (NN models optimized / “best” NN models for selection), Column 16 line 46 – Column 17 line 55 (best RDO with filtering on / off determined (e.g. Column 17 lines 28 – 42 and additionally Column 22 line 51 – 60 or Column 28 lines 43 – 58))],
a minimal value of distortion without NN filter model [Li Figure 22 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 183 (cost functions which are used for distortion determinations in combination with Paragraphs 304 and 321 – 330 (filtering to reduce distortion)), 363 – 367 (e.g. see Cost_0 which is the unfiltered cost not using NN based filtering in the RDO determination) where Wang Column 17 lines 28 – 42, Column 22 line 51 – 60, and additionally Column 28 lines 43 – 58 render optimizing RDO in which in view of Column 20 lines 5 – 26 one of ordinary skill in the art would understand a least distortion is taught as an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art of the “minimal value” claimed] and
a distortion with a best NN filter model [Li Paragraphs 183 and 308 – 311 (RDO for selection of NN / CNN-based filter to apply and decision on to apply the filter at all), 361 – 365 (cost / RD cost of each filter), and 379 – 383 (selection of filter based on RD cost); Wang Column 15 lines 8 – 32 (NN models optimized / “best” NN models for selection), Column 16 line 46 – Column 17 line 55 (best RDO with filtering on / off determined (e.g. Column 17 lines 28 – 42 and additionally Column 22 line 51 – 60 or Column 28 lines 43 – 58))],
the distortion without NN filter model multiplied a scaling factor [See first limitation for citations and additionally Li Figures 21 – 23 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 183 (cost functions which are used for distortion determinations in combination with Paragraphs 304 and 321 – 330 (filtering to reduce distortion)), 201, 368 and 383 (scaling factor on the filtering / residues depending on using the filter)], or
a derivation according to the distortion without NN filter model and the distortion with the n-th NN filter model [Li Paragraphs 183 and 308 – 311 (RDO for selection of NN / CNN-based filter to apply and decision on to apply the filter at all), 361 – 365 (cost / RD cost of each filter), and 379 – 383 (selection of filter based on RD cost to combine with Wang as the derivation of the filtering to use if any considering Cost) through Cost_4); Wang Column 16 line 46 – Column 17 line 20 (signaling applying the filter (e.g. “value of filter On/Off” including NN based filter with RD-Cost / RDO cost considerations) and Column 28 lines 20 – Column 29 line 20 (RDO for the NN determination and prediction mode to use)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Li and Wang.
Regarding claim 8, Li teaches NN filter section with RDO considerations to select the NN filter. Wang teaches computing RDO based on using the filter or not and including NN filter models in RDO determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Li to incorporate Wang’s NN filter model selection processes including RDO modification and signaling with thresholds and scaling factors. The combination teaches
wherein the combination [See claim 7 for citations] is dependent on coding statistics of the video unit [Li Figures 21 – 22 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 336 (QP affects the CNN / NN based model selected rendering obvious further the “coding statistics” claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art), 354 – 367 (RDO / Costs include QP considerations in Paragraph 367 at least) and 380 – 383 (NN / CNN based filtering applied based on statistics of the block / coding statistics and the use of QP affects the NN based models as the obvious variants of the “statistics” claimed are readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art)], and/or
wherein if one or all of candidate modes are not partitioning mode [Li Figures 12 (subfigures included), 14, and 21 – 29 as well as Paragraphs 153 and 363 (candidates for prediction / filter selection not including partition information), 187 – 198 (splitting / partitioning information used in NN coding tool selection / set-up particularly in Paragraphs 193 – 196), 203 – 206 and 229 – 232 (partition information in NN based filter design / selection), 334 and 430 – 435 (CNN filter development / selection includes coding parameters including partition information); Wang Column 16 line 40 – Column 17 line 42 (grid / partition information included in RDO determinations for NN based filter to use using partitions such as in Column 21 lines 7 – 39)], the distortion in the RDO criterion is a combination of at least one of:
a distortion with p-th NN filter model or the distortion without NN filter model, wherein p is an integer number [Li Paragraphs 183 and 308 – 311 (RDO for selection of NN / CNN-based filter to apply and decision on to apply the filter at all), 361 – 365 (cost / RD cost of each filter or Cost_1 through Cost_3 for costs of filters rendering obvious integers p may take as 0 – 4 to one of ordinary skill in the art at least (Cost_4 also taught as a cost of filters), and 379 – 383 (selection of filter based on RD cost); Wang Column 16 line 46 – Column 17 line 20 (signaling applying the filter (NN based filter with RD-Cost / RDO cost considerations) and Column 28 lines 20 – Column 29 line 20 (RDO for the NN determination and prediction mode to use)], and/or
wherein if one or all of candidate modes are partitioning modes [Li Figures 12 (subfigures included), 14, and 21 – 29 as well as Paragraphs 187 – 198 (splitting / partitioning information used in NN coding tool selection / set-up particularly in Paragraphs 193 – 196), 203 – 206 and 229 – 232 (partition information in NN based filter design / selection), 334 and 430 – 435 (CNN filter development / selection includes coding parameters including partition information); Wang Column 16 line 40 – Column 17 line 42 (grid / partition information included in RDO determinations for NN based filter to use using partitions such as in Column 21 lines 7 – 39)], the distortion in the RDO criterion is a combination of at least one of:
a distortion with q-th NN filter model, a distortion with p-th NN filter model, or the distortion without NN filter model, wherein p and q are integer numbers [Li Paragraphs 183 and 308 – 311 (RDO for selection of NN / CNN-based filter to apply and decision on to apply the filter at all), 361 – 365 (cost / RD cost of each filter or Cost_1 through Cost_3 for costs of filters rendering obvious integers q may take as 0 – 4 to one of ordinary skill in the art at least (Cost_4 also taught as a cost of filters), and 379 – 383 (selection of filter based on RD cost); Wang Column 16 line 46 – Column 17 line 20 (signaling applying the filter (NN based filter with RD-Cost / RDO cost considerations) and Column 28 lines 20 – Column 29 line 20 (RDO for the NN determination and prediction mode to use)], and/or
wherein the combination is dependent on at least one of: usage of q-th NN filter model or usage of p-th NN filter model, wherein p and q are integer numbers [See previous limitations for the p-th and q-th NN filter for citations], and/or wherein an approach of determining the distortion in the RDO criterion is applied according to a predefined order or an adaptive order [Li Figures 21 – 22 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 83 (reordering pictures), 252 – 253 (adaptive depth of the video unit) and 336 (approach / coding parameters for NN based filter selection), 354 – 367 (RDO / Costs include QP considerations in Paragraph 367 at least), 372 (adaptive model selection) and 380 – 383 (NN / CNN based filtering applied based on statistics of the block / coding statistics) to combine with Wang Column 16 line 40 – Column 17 line 42 (grid / partition information included in RDO determinations for NN based filter to use using partitions such as in Column 21 lines 7 – 39)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Li and Wang.
Regarding claim 15, Li teaches NN filter section with RDO considerations to select the NN filter. Wang teaches computing RDO based on using the filter or not and including NN filter models in RDO determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Li to incorporate Wang’s NN filter model selection processes including RDO modification and signaling with thresholds and scaling factors. The combination teaches
determining whether to and/or the approach to apply the at least one NN filter in the RDO process based on coding statistics of sub coding units [Li Figures 21 – 22 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 336 (QP affects the CNN / NN based model selected rendering obvious further the “coding statistics” claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art), 354 – 367 (RDO / Costs include QP considerations in Paragraph 367 at least) and 380 – 383 (NN / CNN based filtering applied based on statistics of the block / coding statistics and the use of QP affects the NN based models as the obvious variants of the “statistics” claimed are readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art with partitioning / subpicture considerations in Paragraphs 190 – 191 and 223 – 225); Wang Column 16 line 40 – Column 17 line 42 (grid / partition information included in RDO determinations for NN based filter to use using partitions such as in Column 21 lines 7 – 39 and sub-portion / subblock considerations of filter availability in Column 22 line 20 – Column 23 line 16 based on partitions / subblocks to process within a larger unit)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Li and Wang.
Regarding claim 16, Li teaches NN filter section with RDO considerations to select the NN filter. Wang teaches computing RDO based on using the filter or not and including NN filter models in RDO determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Li to incorporate Wang’s NN filter model selection processes including RDO modification and signaling with thresholds and scaling factors. The combination teaches
wherein if the at least one NN filter is applied to a portion or all of the sub coding units, the at least one NN filter is not applied to the video unit [Li Figures 21 – 22 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 336 (QP affects the CNN / NN based model selected rendering obvious further the “coding statistics” claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art), 354 – 367 (RDO / Costs include QP considerations in Paragraph 367 at least) and 380 – 383 (NN / CNN based filtering applied based on statistics of the block / coding statistics and the use of QP affects the NN based models as the obvious variants of the “statistics” claimed are readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art with partitioning / subpicture considerations in Paragraphs 190 – 191 and 223 – 225); Wang Column 16 line 40 – Column 17 line 42 (grid / partition information included in RDO determinations for NN based filter to use using partitions such as in Column 21 lines 7 – 39 and sub-portion / subblock considerations of filter availability in Column 22 line 20 – Column 23 line 16 based on partitions / subblocks to process within a larger unit with the enabling / disabling per partition / data unit to be processed)], or
wherein if the at least one NN filter is applied to the portion or all of the sub coding units, the at least one NN filter is applied to the video unit [Li Figures 21 – 22 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 336 (QP affects the CNN / NN based model selected rendering obvious further the “coding statistics” claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art), 354 – 367 (RDO / Costs include QP considerations in Paragraph 367 at least) and 380 – 383 (NN / CNN based filtering applied based on statistics of the block / coding statistics and the use of QP affects the NN based models as the obvious variants of the “statistics” claimed are readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art with partitioning / subpicture considerations in Paragraphs 190 – 191 and 223 – 225); Wang Column 16 line 40 – Column 17 line 42 (grid / partition information included in RDO determinations for NN based filter to use using partitions such as in Column 21 lines 7 – 39 and sub-portion / subblock considerations of filter availability in Column 22 line 20 – Column 23 line 16 based on partitions / subblocks to process within a larger unit with the enabling / disabling per partition / data unit to be processed)], and/or
wherein if at least one of: rate-distortion costs or distortions of the portion or all of the sub coding units are available, the at least one NN filter is not applied to the video unit [Li Figures 21 – 22 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 336 (QP affects the CNN / NN based model selected rendering obvious further the “coding statistics” claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art), 354 – 367 (RDO / Costs include QP considerations in Paragraph 367 at least) and 380 – 383 (NN / CNN based filtering applied based on statistics of the block / coding statistics and the use of QP affects the NN based models as the obvious variants of the “statistics” claimed are readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art with partitioning / subpicture considerations in Paragraphs 190 – 191 and 223 – 225); Wang Column 16 line 40 – Column 17 line 42 (grid / partition information included in RDO determinations for NN based filter to use using partitions such as in Column 21 lines 7 – 39 and sub-portion / subblock considerations of filter availability in Column 22 line 20 – Column 23 line 16 based on partitions / subblocks to process within a larger unit with the enabling / disabling per partition / data unit to be processed)], or
wherein if at least one of: rate-distortion costs or distortions of the portion or all of the sub coding units are available, the at least one NN filter is applied to the video unit [Li Figures 21 – 22 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 336 (QP affects the CNN / NN based model selected rendering obvious further the “coding statistics” claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art), 354 – 367 (RDO / Costs include QP considerations in Paragraph 367 at least) and 380 – 383 (NN / CNN based filtering applied based on statistics of the block / coding statistics and the use of QP affects the NN based models as the obvious variants of the “statistics” claimed are readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art with partitioning / subpicture considerations in Paragraphs 190 – 191 and 223 – 225); Wang Column 16 line 40 – Column 17 line 42 (grid / partition information included in RDO determinations for NN based filter to use using partitions such as in Column 21 lines 7 – 39 and sub-portion / subblock considerations of filter availability in Column 22 line 20 – Column 23 line 16 based on partitions / subblocks to process within a larger unit with the enabling / disabling per partition / data unit to be processed)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Li and Wang.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and Double Patenting Rejections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 12, the prior art does not fairly present the combination / recitations of block size constraints related to particular NN based filters to use in the RDO computations / determinations as in the present claims as best possibly understood in view of numerous 112(b) Indefinite issues present.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reference considered in ODP Search and consideration which may raise issues based on amendments made to the claims: Li, et al. (US PG PUB 2024/0244239 A1 referred to as “Li 39” throughout).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler W Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)270-5684. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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.
/TYLER W. SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights