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
Claims 1-20 filed on 07/03/2025 are pending.
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deshpande (“Deshpande”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2024/0089510 A1]
Regarding claim 1, Deshpande meets the claim limitations as follows:
A method for processing media data (i.e. ‘techniques for signaling neural network post-filter parameter information for coded video data’) [para. 0005, 0006: ‘a method of coding video data …’], comprising:
determining a purpose (i.e. ‘signaling neural network post-filter parameter information’, e.g., ‘nnpfc_purpose_and_formatting_flag shall be equal to 1’) of a neural-network post-filter (NNPF) [para. 0005, 0006, 0121: ‘a method of coding video data …’] based on a neural-network post-filter characteristics (NNPFC) supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message [para. 0038, 0114-0121: ‘A Neural network post-filter characteristics SEI message specifies a neural network that may be used as a post processing filter’; Table 6, 7, 17],
wherein the purpose of the NNPF (i.e. ‘nnpfc_purpose indicates the purpose of post-processing filter as specified in Table 9’) is allowed to include at least two of chroma upsampling (i.e. Value 2) [Table 9, 17], resolution resampling (i.e. Value 4) [Table 9, 17], picture rate upsampling (i.e. Value 5) [Table 17], and general visual quality improvement (i.e. Value 1) [para. 0123: Table 9, 17]; and
performing a conversion between the media data and a bitstream based on the purpose of the NNPF (i.e. ‘converting a sample value of the cropped decoded output picture to an input value’) [para. 0125, 0137: OutY() and OutC()].
Regarding claim 2, Deshpande meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the purpose of the NNPF comprises both of the picture rate upsampling (i.e. Value 5) [Table 17] and the chroma upsampling (i.e. Value 2) [Table 9, 17], without the resolution resampling (i.e. Value 2: ‘Chroma upsampling from 4:2:0 … to 4:2:2’ is no changing luma resolution) [Table 9, 17],
Regarding claim 3, Deshpande meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the purpose of the NNPF comprises both of the picture rate upsampling (i.e. Value 5) [Table 17] and the resolution resampling (i.e. Value 3) [Table 9, 17], without the chroma upsampling (i.e. Value 3: ‘without changing the chroma format’) [Table 9, 17].
Regarding claim 4, Deshpande meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the purpose of the NNPF comprises all of the picture rate upsampling (i.e. Value 5) [Table 17], the resolution resampling (i.e. Value 4) [Table 9, 17], and the chroma upsampling (i.e. Value 2) [Table 9, 17].
Regarding claim 5, Deshpande meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the purpose of the NNPF comprises both of the picture rate upsampling (i.e. Value 5) [Table 17] and the general visual quality improvement (i.e. Value 1) [Table 9, 17].
Regarding claim 6, Deshpande meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the purpose of the NNPF is determined based on a value [Table 9, 17] of an indication included in the NNPFC SEI message [para. 0038, 0114-0121, 0123].
Regarding claim 8, Deshpande meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the media data into the bitstream (i.e. ‘converting a sample value of the cropped decoded output picture to an input value’) [Fig. 5: video encoder 500: bitstream; para. 0071-0072, 0160, 0125, 0137: ‘receives source video blocks and outputs a bitstream’; OutY() and OutC()].
Regarding claim 9, Deshpande meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the media data from the bitstream [Fig. 6: video decoder 600: bitstream; para. 0071-0072, 0160, 0125, 0137].
Regarding claim 10, the corresponding apparatus in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 11, the corresponding apparatus in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 2, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 12, the corresponding apparatus in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 3, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 13, the corresponding apparatus in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 4, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 14, the corresponding apparatus in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 5, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 15, the corresponding apparatus in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 6, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 17, the corresponding ‘A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions’ in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 18, the corresponding ‘A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions’ in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 2, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 19, the corresponding ‘A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream of a video’ in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner. Note: Claim 19’s recitation of “a bit stream of a video which is generated by a method”, wherein 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 modes, coding block, flags and values 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 services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore the structure 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 Deshpande reciting a storage medium storing a bitstream [para. 0153].
Regarding claim 20, the corresponding ‘A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream of a video’ in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 2, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 7 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande (“Deshpande”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2003/0110515 A1] in view of obviousness
Regarding claim 7, Deshpande meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 6, wherein when the value of the indication is equal to (i.e. Value 5) and the general visual quality improvement (i.e. Value 1) [Fig. 9, 17], without the chroma upsampling and the resolution resampling.
Deshpande does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein when the value of the indication is equal to 9, the purpose of the NNPF comprises both of the picture rate upsampling and the general visual quality improvement, without the chroma upsampling and the resolution resampling.
However the “NOTE” below Table 17 disclosed by Deshpande suggests the deficient claim as follows:
wherein when the value of the indication is equal to 9 [NOTE ‘When a reserved value of nnpfc_purpose is taken into use in the future …. the syntax of this SEI message could be extended with syntax elements whose presence is conditioned by nnpfc_purpose being equal to that value], the purpose of the NNPF comprises both of the picture rate upsampling and the general visual quality improvement, without the chroma upsampling and the resolution resampling.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to enumerate one of the reserved values listed in Table 17 for another purpose.
Regarding claim 16, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 7 in the apparatus form and rejected as per discussion for claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 (toll-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.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights