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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/21/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-7, 12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sato et al., (U.S. Patent No. 12,537,966 B2) referred to as SATO hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 1, SATO shows a method for visual data processing (FIG. 1 demonstrates processing via encoding.) , comprising:
determining, for a conversion between visual data and a bitstream of the visual data, whether to enable a first module implemented with a first neural network in a coding system, the coding system being implemented with at least one neural network (Col. 8, lines 40-49 describe syntax-level flags that enable/disable various NN-based tools at various levels.);
and performing the conversion by using the coding system based on the determining (Col. 7, lines 64+, "For Versatile Video Coding…").
Regarding claim 2, SATO shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein whether to enable the first module is determined based on a syntax element in at least one of:
the bitstream, a profile associated with the visual data, or a level indicator associated with the visual data (Col. 8, lines 40-49 describe syntax-level flags that enable/disable various NN-based tools at various levels and are contained withing various layers and syntax, which is inherently contained within the bitstream.).
Regarding claim 3, SATO shows the limitations as per Claim 2 above, wherein if the syntax element indicates to enable the first module, the conversion is performed by using the coding system with the first module enabled (Col. 9, lines 10-15, 48-51, etc.), and
if the syntax element indicates to disable the first module, the conversion is performed by using the coding system with the first module disabled (Col. 9, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 4, SATO shows the limitations as per Claim 2 above, wherein the syntax element indicates whether to enable the first module or a second module implemented with a second neural network in the coding system (Col. 15, lines 5-10 wherein the decoder-side NNs are being interpreted as the second neural network in the system.), and wherein if the syntax element indicates to enable the second module, the conversion is performed by using the coding system with the second module enabled and the first module disabled, and/or wherein the first module comprises a first attention model of a first complexity, and the second module comprises a second attention model of a second complexity different from the first complexity.
Regarding claim 5, SATO shows the limitations as per Claim 2 above, wherein the first module is a submodule in a second module implemented with a second neural network in the coding system, the syntax element indicating whether to enable the first module in the second module, the conversion being performed by using at least the second module (First, col. 10, lines 60-67 shows how individual NN tools [submodules] can be used for individual layers, then once coded those individual tools are utilized to decode said individual layers (col. 15, lines 10-25)).
Regarding claim 6, SATO shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein the first module comprises at least one layer of a neural network model in the coding system (The Abstract describes a neural-network-based coding tool, wherein it is inherent that a neural-network is comprised of layers, at least one.).
Regarding claim 7, SATO shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein if the first module is enabled, the conversion is performed at a first operating point with a first compression ratio, and if the first module is disabled, the conversion is performed at a second operating point with a second compression ratio, the second compression ratio being lower than the first compression ratio (col. 18 as a whole discusses various features behind enabling and disabling neural network modules based on context and the benefits, which include efficiency of compression size and others.).
Regarding claim 12, SATO shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein the visual data comprises a luma component and a chroma component (col. 14, lines 17-22), and/or wherein the coding system further comprises a scaling module for scaling an input of the scaling module based on a scaling factor, wherein the scaling factor is included in the bitstream (in the alternative and therefore not required to be met.).
Regarding claim 14, SATO shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein the coding system further comprises at least one of:
an entropy coding module (FIG. 1, 116), a range coding module (in the alternative and therefore not required to be met.), or an arithmetic coding module (col. 5, 62-64).
Regarding claim 15, SATO shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein information regarding applying the method is included in the bitstream (col. 8, lines 40-49 show various information being carried within the bitstream.), wherein the information indicates at least one of:
whether to apply the method (col. 8, lines 40-49, enable/disable), or how to apply the method (col. 8, lines 40-49, which layers, when etc.), and/or wherein the information regarding applying the method is determined based on coding information of the visual data (col. 14, lines 17-30 show the various visual data that is used to make the determinations on coding/decoding), wherein the coding information comprises at least one of:
a dimension of the visual data, or a color format of the visual data (col. 17, line 58 - col. 18, line 10 describes the post-filtering that is applied to and involves color gamut [color format of the visual data].).
Regarding claim 16, SATO shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein the conversion comprises decoding the visual data from the bitstream (FIG. 2 shows the decoding process.).
Regarding claim 17, SATO shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein the conversion comprises encoding the visual data into the bitstream (FIG. 1 shows the encoding process.).
Regarding Claim 18, SATO shows an apparatus for visual data processing comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to:
determine, for a conversion between visual data and a bitstream of the visual data, whether to enable a first module implemented with a first neural network in a coding system, the coding system being implemented with at least one neural network (Col. 8, lines 40-49 describe syntax-level flags that enable/disable various NN-based tools at various levels.);
and perform the conversion by using the coding system based on the determining (Col. 7, lines 64+, "For Versatile Video Coding…").
Regarding Claim 19, SATO shows a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform a method comprising:
determining, for a conversion between visual data and a bitstream of the visual data, whether to enable a first module implemented with a first neural network in a coding system, the coding system being implemented with at least one neural network (Col. 8, lines 40-49 describe syntax-level flags that enable/disable various NN-based tools at various levels.);
and performing the conversion by using the coding system based on the determining (Col. 7, lines 64+, "For Versatile Video Coding…").
Regarding claim 20, a bitstream generated by a method, the method comprising… is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“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”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 18 merely serves as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore, the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by REFERENCE which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (Claim 9).
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.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SATO in view of Hannuksela et al., (US 2013/0188738 A1) referred to as HANNUKSELA hereinafter.
Regarding claim 13, SATO shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, however failing to but HANNUKSELA does specifically show wherein the coding system further comprises an addition module for adding an addition factor to an input of the addition module, wherein the addition factor is included in the bitstream (Paragraphs [0167]-[0168] adds a factor or offset value to an input.).
Both SATO and HANNUKSELA are analogous art to that of the claimed invention in that they are in the same field of endeavor of image and/or video compression/processing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SATO in the spirit of HANNUKSELA because it more effectively handles referencing of pictures and ordering without wasting bits while not losing robustness and minimizing packet loss (Paragraphs [0002]-[0006]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LEI et al., (US 2025/0119897 A1) discloses a data transmission method.
CHEN et al., (U.S. Patent No. 6,263,022 B1) discloses fine granular scalable video with selective quality enhancement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN W. RIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7.00 am - 4.30 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 J 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.
JUSTIN W. RIDER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/Justin W Rider/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights