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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This office action for US Patent application 19/258185 is responsive to communications filed on July 2nd, 2025. Currently, claims 1-30 are pending are presented for examination.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 12-18, 20-21, 24-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C §102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by LIU et al. (US 20250254298 A1: refer to its PCT filed on April 12th, 2023).
Regarding claim 1, LIU et al. (US 20250254298 A1: refer to its PCT filed on April 12th, 2023) meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A method of decoding encoded video data, the method comprising:
determining, from the encoded video data, a block of a picture [i.e. Fig. 3];
applying a neural network (NN)-based filter process to the block to generate a filtered block [i.e. NN filter 330 with different inputs; Fig. 3], wherein applying the NN-based filter process comprises:
processing a first input channel comprising sample data in a transform domain [i.e. one input is values of luma components of reconstructed samples 380 or values of luma components of predicted samples 395; paragraph. 0098]; and
processing a second input channel comprising context data in a non- transform domain [i.e. another input is a block boundary strength; paragraph. 0098];
determining a decoded version of the block based on the filtered block [i.e. Fig. 3]; and
outputting a decoded version of the picture comprising the decoded version of the block [i.e. Fig. 3].
Regarding claim 2, LIU et al. (US 20250254298 A1: refer to its PCT filed on April 12th, 2023) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, LIU et al. (US 20250254298 A1: refer to its PCT filed on April 12th, 2023) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the context data comprises a coding mode of the block [i.e. an input is additional input information may comprise prediction mode information or I/P/B prediction mode information; paragraph. 0089].
Regarding claim 3, LIU et al. (US 20250254298 A1: refer to its PCT filed on April 12th, 2023) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, LIU et al. (US 20250254298 A1: refer to its PCT filed on April 12th, 2023) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the context data comprises a boundary strength of the block [i.e. block boundary strength; paragraph. 0087].
Regarding claim 4, LIU et al. (US 20250254298 A1: refer to its PCT filed on April 12th, 2023) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, LIU et al. (US 20250254298 A1: refer to its PCT filed on April 12th, 2023) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the sample data in the transform domain comprises prediction data [i.e. values of chroma components of predicted samples 395; paragraph. 0087, Fig. 3].
Regarding claim 5, LIU et al. (US 20250254298 A1: refer to its PCT filed on April 12th, 2023) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, LIU et al. (US 20250254298 A1: refer to its PCT filed on April 12th, 2023) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the sample data in the transform domain comprises reconstructed sample data [i.e. luma components and chroma components of reconstructed samples 380, Fig. 3].
Regarding claim 6, LIU et al. (US 20250254298 A1: refer to its PCT filed on April 12th, 2023) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, LIU et al. (US 20250254298 A1: refer to its PCT filed on April 12th, 2023) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first input channel comprises a 3x3 convolution [i.e. conn3x3; paragraph. 0075].
Regarding claim 8, LIU et al. (US 20250254298 A1: refer to its PCT filed on April 12th, 2023) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, LIU et al. (US 20250254298 A1: refer to its PCT filed on April 12th, 2023) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein applying the NN-based filter process comprises: processing a third input channel comprising control data in the non- transform domain [i.e. an input is quantization parameters “qp”; paragraph. 0074].
Regarding claim 9, LIU et al. (US 20250254298 A1: refer to its PCT filed on April 12th, 2023) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 8.
Furthermore, LIU et al. (US 20250254298 A1: refer to its PCT filed on April 12th, 2023) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 8, wherein the control data comprises a base quantization parameter value [i.e. the quantization parameters; paragraph. 0074].
Regarding claim 12, LIU et al. (US 20250254298 A1: refer to its PCT filed on April 12th, 2023) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, LIU et al. (US 20250254298 A1: refer to its PCT filed on April 12th, 2023) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the method of decoding the encoded video data is performed as part of a video encoding process [i.e. Fig. 3].
Regarding claims 13-18, all the claim limitations which are set forth and rejected as per discussion for claims 1-6 respectively.
Regarding claims 20-21, all the claim limitations which are set forth and rejected as per discussion for claims 8-9 respectively.
Regarding claim 24, LIU et al. (US 20250254298 A1: refer to its PCT filed on April 12th, 2023) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 13.
Furthermore, LIU et al. (US 20250254298 A1: refer to its PCT filed on April 12th, 2023) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The device of claim 13, wherein to output the decoded version of the picture comprising the decoded version of the block, the processing circuitry is configured to store a copy of the decoded version of the picture for use in encoding subsequent pictures of the video data [i.e. i.e. decoded version stored in the frame buffer; Fig. 3].
Regarding claim 25, LIU et al. (US 20250254298 A1: refer to its PCT filed on April 12th, 2023) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 13.
Furthermore, LIU et al. (US 20250254298 A1: refer to its PCT filed on April 12th, 2023) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The device of claim 13, further comprising a display configured to display the decoded version of the picture [i.e. display it on screen, paragraph. 0002].
Regarding claim 26, LIU et al. (US 20250254298 A1: refer to its PCT filed on April 12th, 2023) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 13.
Furthermore, LIU et al. (US 20250254298 A1: refer to its PCT filed on April 12th, 2023) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The device of claim 13, wherein the device comprises one or more of a camera, a computer, a mobile device, a broadcast receiver device, or a set-top box [i.e. computing device; paragraph. 0060].
Regarding claims 27-30, all the claim limitations which are set forth and rejected as per discussion for claims 1-4 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 :AIA
5. 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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter 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 said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
6. Claims 10, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C §103 unpatentable over LIU et al. (US 20250254298 A1: refer to its PCT filed on April 12th, 2023) in view of ANDERSSON et al. (US 20250071283 A1: refer to its PCT filed on December 14th, 2022).
Regarding claim 10, LIU et al. (US 20250254298 A1: refer to its PCT filed on April 12th, 2023) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 8.
In the same field of endeavor, ANDERSSON et al. (US 20250071283 A1: refer to its PCT filed on December 14th, 2022) discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 8, wherein the control data comprises a slice quantization parameter value [i.e. an input of a NN is a slice quantization parameter; paragraph. 0054].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the teachings LIU et al. (US 20250254298 A1: refer to its PCT filed on April 12th, 2023) ANDERSSON et al. (US 20250071283 A1: refer to its PCT filed on December 14th, 2022) in order to create a decoding method as the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 22, all the claim limitations which are set forth and rejected as per discussion for claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 11, 19, 23 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 form the examiner should be directed to Nam Pham, whose can be contacted by phone at (571)270-7352. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon—Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, CZEKAJ DAVID, can be reached on (571)272-7327.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) AT 866-217-9197 (too free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NAM D PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
