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 .
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 1,3-6, 8-11, 13-14, 18-20, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-6, 8, 11-12, 16, 18-19, 21, 26-27 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 11, 930,215 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the conflicting claims are not identical in terms of wording and terminology, the scope of the claims are the same, they are not patentable distinct from each other and they are obvious variants of each other as shown in the table below, for example for at least claims 1, 3-6, 8-9..
Instant Applicant No. 19/243,453
U.S. Patent No. 11,930,215 B2
1. A method of filtering video data, the method comprising: determining to apply one or more neural network model for filtering a portion of a decoded picture of video data; in response to determining to apply the one or more neural network models; determining the one or more neural network models to be used to filter the portion of the decoded picture of video data; and filtering the partition of the decoded picture using the one or more neural network models.
1. A method of filtering decoded video data, the method comprising: decoding a picture of video data; coding a value for a syntax element representing a plurality of neural network models to be used to filter a portion of the decoded picture, the plurality of neural network models being pre-defined neural network models; and filtering the portion of the decoded picture using the plurality of neural network models corresponding to the value, including: separately applying each of the plurality of neural network models represented by the value to the portion to form distinct results; and combining each of the results to form a final filtered portion; and claim 8, further comprising determining to apply the neural network model prior to determining the neural network model.
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,930,215 B2.
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,930,215 B2.
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,930,215 B2.
Claim 6 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,930,215 B2.
Claim 8 of the instant application corresponds to claim 11 of U.S. Patent No., 11,930,215 B2.
Claim 9 of the instant application corresponds to claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,930,215 B2.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1-4 7-8, 10- is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Yin et al., (U.S. Pub. No.2019/0273948 A1).
As per claim 1, Yin teaches a method of filtering decoded video data, the method comprising: determining to apply one or more neural network models for filtering a portion of a decoded picture of video data ([0106], [0107], table 1, table 2 and fig. 6A-B; “sps_acnnlf_enable_flag indicates whether or not the adaptable neural network is enabled for the entire RAS or group of pictures.”); in response to determining to apply the one or more neural network models (fig. 6A-B, table 1, table 2); determining the one or more neural network models to be used to filter the portion of the decoded picture of video data (fig. 3, 6A-B, [0039-0040], [0063], [0100-0102], [0105]); and filtering the portion of the decoded picture using the one or more neural network models (fig, 6A-B; [0106]; “process 600 may include “apply neural network(s) for NN filtering at current reconstructed frame at decoder” 660, and this may be performed differently depending on which alternative neural networks have been received by the decoder and whether the identity of the selected neural network was received as well.”).
As per claim 2, Yin teaches wherein determining to apply the one or more neural network models comprise decoding a syntax element having a value indicating that the one or more neural network model are to be applied ([0106], [0107], and fig. 6A-B; “In the slice header, one syntax element (acnnlf_luma_slice_enable_flag and acnnl_chroma_slice_enable_flag) may be used to indicate ACNNLF enable/disable”).
As per claim 3, Yin teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 2. In addition, Yin teaches wherein the syntax elements is of at least one of a video parameter set (VPS), a sequence parameter set (SPS), a picture parameter set (PPS), a picture header, a slice header, an adaptation parameter set (APS), an intra period level, a group of pictures (GOP) level, a temporal layer level in the GOP, a picture level, a slice level, a coding tree unit (CTU) level, or a grid level size ([0106-0107]; “In the slice header, one syntax element (acnnlf_luma_slice_enable_flag and acnnl_chroma_slice_enable_flag) may be used to indicate ACNNLF enable/disable”).
As per claim 4, Yin teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition Yin teaches partitioning the decoding picture according to a grid, wherein the partition comprises an element of the grid of the decoded picture ([0039], [0046], [0069] and fig. 2A).
As per claim 7, Yin teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 4. In addition, Yin teaches determining to apply the one or more neural network models for filtering the partition of the decoded picture comprises determining whether to apply the one or more neural network models for each element of the grid ([0060]
As per claim 8, Yin teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, Yin teaches wherein the portion comprises a portion of a color component of the decoded picture, the color component comprising one a luminance component, a blue hue chrominance component, or a red hue chrominance component (fig. 1, [0030], [0058]).
As per claim 10, Yin teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 8. In addition, Yin teaches decoding separate syntax elements that individually indicate whether corresponding color components are to be filtered using the one or more neural network models (table 1, table 2 and [0107]).
As per claim 11, which is the corresponding device for decoding video data with the limitations of the method for filtering decoded video data, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here. In addition, Yin teaches a memory configured to store video data (fig. 10-12), and a processing system implemented in circuitry (fig. 10-12).
As per claim 12, which is the corresponding device with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 2, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 2 also applies here.
As per claim 13, which is the corresponding device with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 3, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 3 also applies here.
As per claim 14, which is the corresponding device with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 4, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 4 also applies here.
As per claim 17, which is the corresponding device with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 7, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 7 also applies here.
As per claim 18, which is the corresponding device with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 8, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 8 also applies here.
As per claim 19, Yin teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 11. In addition, Yin teaches a display configured to display the decoded picture of video data ([0053], [0099], [0106], [0119] and fig.10).
As per claim 20, Yin teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 11. In addition, Yin teaches wherein the device comprises one or more of a camera, a computer, a mobile device, a broadcast receiver device, or a set-top box ([0024], [0126], [0139]).
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) 5-6, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0273948 A1) in view of Chen et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0044838 A1).
As per claim 5, Yin teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. Yin does not explicitly disclose determining a number of elements of the grid.
However, Chen teaches determining a number of elements of the grid ([0006], [0057-0059], [0125] table 1, and fig. 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Chen with Yin for the benefit of providing improved signaling of partitioning structure as well as providing the predictable results of signaling partitioning structure for video data.
As per claim 6, Yin (modified by Chen) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 5. Yin does not explicitly disclose determining the number of elements of the grid comprises decoding a syntax element of at least one of video parameter set (VPS), a sequence parameter set (SPS), a picture parameter set (PPS), a picture header, a slice header, an adaption parameter set (APS), an intra period level, a group of picture (GOP) level, a temporal layer level in the GOP, a picture level, a slice, a coding tree unit (CTU) level, or a grid size level.
However, Chen determining the number of elements of the grid comprises decoding a syntax element of at least one of video parameter set (VPS), a sequence parameter set (SPS), a picture parameter set (PPS), a picture header, a slice header, an adaption parameter set (APS), an intra period level, a group of picture (GOP) level, a temporal layer level in the GOP, a picture level, a slice, a coding tree unit (CTU) level, or a grid size level ([0006], [0057-0059], [0125] table 1, and fig. 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Chen with Yin for the benefit of providing improved signaling of partitioning structure as well as providing the predictable results of signaling partitioning structure for video data.
As per claim 15, which is the corresponding device with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 5, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 5 also applies here.
As per claim 16, which is the corresponding device with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 6, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 6 also applies here.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1821. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30 P.M..
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.
JESSICA PRINCE
Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/JESSICA M PRINCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights