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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-11, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Deshpande US 20240221231.
Regarding claim 1, Deshpande meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A method for processing media data, comprising:
determining a number of pictures used as input for a neural-network post-filter (NNPF) based on a neural- network post-filter characteristics (NNPFC) supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message (i.e. numInputPics indicated in the bitstream) [300-309]; and
performing a conversion between the media data and a bitstream based on the number of pictures (i.e. encoder and decoder convert data based on frames) [280,358; fig. 5,6].
Regarding claim 2, Deshpande meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the number of pictures used as input for the NNPF is determined based on a first syntax element included in the NNPFC SEI message (i.e. numInputPics indicated in the set message) [300-309].
Regarding claim 5, Deshpande meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 2, wherein when a purpose of the NNPF includes picture rate upsampling, a value of the first syntax element is greater than 0 (i.e. purpose indicates upsampling. Upsampling is not performed if value is 0) [181-182; table 8].
Regarding claim 6, Deshpande meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 5, wherein the purpose of the NNPF is determined based on a second syntax element included in the NNPFC SEI message (i.e. nnpfc_purpose is used to indicate purpose and is included in the SEI message) [181-182,309; table 6].
Regarding claim 7, Deshpande meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 6, wherein the second syntax element is denoted as nnpfcpurpose (i.e. nnpfc_purpose is used to indicate purpose) [181-182,309; table 6].
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. encoder and decoder convert data based on frames) [280,358; fig. 5,6].
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 (i.e. encoder and decoder convert data based on frames) [280,358; fig. 5,6].
Claim 10 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1 and further below.
Deshpande meets the claim limitations, as follows:
An apparatus for processing media data comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor [362-363]
Claim 11 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 2.
Claim 14 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 5.
Claim 15 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 6.
Claim 16 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 7.
Claim 17 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 10.
Claim 18 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 2.
Claim 19 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 10.
Claim 20 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 2.
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.
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 3,4,12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande in view of Deshpande2 “On NNPFC SEI Message”.
Regarding claim 3, Deshpande disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the number of pictures used as input for the NNPF is equal to a value of the first syntax element plus 2 (i.e. when nnpfc_num_input_pics_minus2 is used, 2 is added.) [TABLE-US-00021].
Deshpande do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the number of pictures used as input for the NNPF is equal to a value of the first syntax element plus 1.
However, in the same field of endeavor Despande2 discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the number of pictures used as input for the NNPF is equal to a value of the first syntax element plus 1 (i.e. when nnpfc_num_input_pics_minus2 is used, 2 is added. It would be obvious that if it was plus1 as in the NPL, 1 would be added.) [2.2].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Deshpande with Deshpande2 to have wherein the number of pictures used as input for the NNPF is equal to a value of the first syntax element plus 1.
It would be advantageous because this would enable specific filter use for specific pictures to be indicated.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Deshpande with Deshpande2 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Deshpande2 meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 2, wherein the first syntax element is denoted as nnpfc_num_input_pics_minus1 [2.2].
Claim 12 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 3.
Claim 13 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 4.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED T WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 - 4:30 Mountain.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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.
/Jared Walker/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights