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 1-5, 10 and 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-6, 8, 11, 15 and 18-20 of copending Application No. 19/358291. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as indicated below:
Instant Application
19/358291
1. A method for video processing, comprising: performing a conversion between a video and a bitstream of the video, wherein a neural-network post-processing filter (NNPF) is applied on at least one picture associated with the video, the bitstream comprises a first indication indicating a purpose of the NNPF, one of a plurality of candidates for the purpose corresponds to a bit mask, and the bit mask is used for determining the purpose of the NNPF based on the first indication.
1. A method for video processing, comprising: performing a conversion between a video and a bitstream of the video, wherein a neural-network post-processing filter (NNPF) is applied on at least one picture associated with the video, and the bitstream comprises a first indication indicating whether to change a video format of the video.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the bitstream further comprises a second indication indicating a purpose of the NNPF
15. …. the bit mask is used for determining the purpose of the NNPF based on the second indication, or wherein at least one of the following is predetermined or indicated in the bitstream: whether the NNPF with one of the set of candidates as the purpose is allowed to be used together with a further NNPF with a different purpose, or an order of applying the NNPF and the further NNPF.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein one bit or one effective bit in the first indication indicates whether the purpose of the NNPF comprises one of the plurality of candidates for the purpose.
11. The method of claim 10, wherein if a value of the predetermined bit of the second indication is equal to the predetermined value of the predetermined bit, the bitstream further comprises a third indication indicating an additional purpose of the NNPF, or wherein the predetermined value of the predetermined bit is 1, or the predetermined bit is the most significant bit.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the first indication comprises a syntax element nnpfc_purpose.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the second indication comprises a syntax element nnpfc_purpose, or wherein a value range of the second indication is larger than a value range of an unsigned integer using 16 bits.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the first indication is indicated as an unsigned integer using a plurality of bits.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the second indication comprises a syntax element nnpfc_purpose, or wherein a value range of the second indication is larger than a value range of an unsigned integer using 16 bits.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the number of the plurality of bits is one of 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 16 or 32.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the predetermined number is equal to 32.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of candidates for the purpose comprise a change of a format of the at least one picture.
1. A method for video processing, comprising: performing a conversion between a video and a bitstream of the video, wherein a neural-network post-processing filter (NNPF) is applied on at least one picture associated with the video, and the bitstream comprises a first indication indicating whether to change a video format of the video.
Claims 18-20 of the instant application are similarly rejected over claims 18-20 of the ‘291 application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3 and 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable 1, 4, 7 and 18-20 over claim of copending Application No. 19/349894. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as indicated below:
Instant Application
19/349894
1. A method for video processing, comprising: performing a conversion between a video and a bitstream of the video, wherein a neural-network post-processing filter (NNPF) is applied on at least one picture associated with the video, the bitstream comprises a first indication indicating a purpose of the NNPF, one of a plurality of candidates for the purpose corresponds to a bit mask, and the bit mask is used for determining the purpose of the NNPF based on the first indication.
1. A method for video processing, comprising: performing a conversion between a video and a bitstream of the video, wherein a neural-network post-processing filter (NNPF) is applied on a first picture associated with the video, the bitstream comprises a first indication indicating a purpose of the NNPF, a first candidate of a plurality of candidates for the purpose is generating a second picture corresponding to the first picture, and a type of information comprised in the second picture is different from the first picture.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of candidates for the purpose corresponds to a bit mask, and the bit mask is used for determining the purpose of the NNPF based on the first indication.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the first indication comprises a syntax element nnpfc_purpose.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the first indication comprises a syntax element nnpfc_purpose, or wherein the first picture is a decoded picture of the video or a cropped decoded picture of the video, or wherein the first candidate is only for generating the second picture.
Claims 18-20 of the instant application are similarly rejected over claims 18-20 of the ‘894 application, This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3 and 18-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 18-20 of copending Application No. 19/260133. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as indicated below:
Instant Application
19/260133
1. A method for video processing, comprising: performing a conversion between a video and a bitstream of the video, wherein a neural-network post-processing filter (NNPF) is applied on at least one picture associated with the video, the bitstream comprises a first indication indicating a purpose of the NNPF, one of a plurality of candidates for the purpose corresponds to a bit mask, and the bit mask is used for determining the purpose of the NNPF based on the first indication.
1. A method for video processing, comprising: performing a conversion between a video and a bitstream of the video, wherein a neural-network post-processing filter (NNPF) is applied on at least one picture associated with the video, the bitstream comprises a first indication indicating a purpose of the NNPF, and one of candidates for the purpose is colorization of the at least one picture.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein if a result of applying a bitwise AND operation on the first indication and a first bit mask is not equal to a first value, the purpose of the NNPF comprises the colorization of the at least one picture, or if the result of applying the bitwise AND operation on the first indication and the first bit mask is equal to the first value, the purpose of the NNPF does not comprise the colorization of the at least one picture.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein one bit or one effective bit in the first indication indicates whether the purpose of the NNPF comprises one of the plurality of candidates for the purpose.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first indication comprises a syntax element nnpfc_purpose, or wherein the purpose of the NNPF is allowed to comprise a combination of at least two of the following: a change of a chroma format of the at least one picture, a change of a picture rate of the at least one picture, a change of a resolution of the at least one picture, a change of a bit depth of a sample value in the at least one picture, or the colorization of the at least one picture.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein a value of a bit in the first indication indicates whether the purpose of the NNPF comprises the colorization of the at least one picture.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the first indication comprises a syntax element nnpfc_purpose.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first indication comprises a syntax element nnpfc_purpose, or wherein the purpose of the NNPF is allowed to comprise a combination of at least two of the following: a change of a chroma format of the at least one picture, a change of a picture rate of the at least one picture, a change of a resolution of the at least one picture, a change of a bit depth of a sample value in the at least one picture, or the colorization of the at least one picture.
Claims 18-20 of the instant application are similarly rejected over claims 18-20 of the ‘133 application, This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 20 relates to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream a generated by a particular encoding method. Since the claims relate to a bitstream which is stored on a computer readable medium after all coding functions have been performed the bitstream no longer has any functional relationship with a processor or other machine, but instead relates to e.g. a video stored on a hard drive. The purpose of the stored bitstream is only to convey meaning to a human viewer of the coded bitstream and is thus non-functional descriptive material. Non-functional descriptive material used only to convey messages or meaning is given little patentable weight (See MPEP 2111.05). For the purposes of examination the examiner will interpret the claim as relating only to a computer readable medium storing data.
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)(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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Deshpande (2024/0205462).
In regard to claim 1 Deshpande discloses a method for video processing comprising:
performing a conversion between a video and a bitstream of the video, wherein a neural-network post-processing filter (NNPF) is applied on at least one picture associated with the video (Deshpande Fig. 6 and pars 195-197 note post processing filter unit 614), the bitstream comprises a first indication indicating a purpose of the NNPF (Deshpande pars. 125-126 note elements nnpfc_formatting_and_purpose_flag and nnpfc_purpose together as the first indication), one of a plurality of candidate for the purpose corresponds to a bit mask, and the bit mask is used for determining the purpose of the NNPF based on the first indication (Deshpande par. 125 note table 8 for candidate purposes, further note pseudo-code in Table 6 on pg. 13, particularly starting at “if(nnpfc_formatting_and_purpose_flag)” until “/*ISO/IEC 15938-17 Bitstream */” which acts as a bit mask to select an NNPF purpose by first determining if the formatting an purpose flag is set to 1 and if so testing the nnpfc_purpose syntax is equal to particular values to determine the NNPF purpose).
In regard to claim 2 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Deshpande further discloses that one or more effective bit in the first indication indicates whether the purpose of the NPFF comprises one of the plurality of candidates for the purpose (Deshpande Fig. 126 note nnpfc_formatting_and_purpose_flag, also note pseudo-code in Table 6 on pg. 13 note “if(nnpfc_formatting_and_purpose_flag)” which is a flag or ‘effective bit’ that indicates whether or not syntax elements related to the filter purpose will be used).
In regard to claim 3 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Deshpande further discloses that the first indication comprises a syntax element nnpfc_purpose (Deshpande par. 126 note nnpfc_purpose).
In regard to claim 4 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Deshpande further discloses the first indication is indicated as an unsigned integer using a plurality of bits (Deshpande par. 125 note nnpfc_purpose is an integer that includes values for 0-1023 which corresponds to a 10 bit value).
In regard to claim 5 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 4 above. Deshpande further discloses that the number of the plurality of bits is one of 3, 4, 6 , 8, 10, 16, or 32 (Deshpande par. 125 note nnpfc_purpose is an integer that includes values for 0-1023 which corresponds to a 10 bit value).
.
In regard to claim 6 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above.
if a value of a first bit in the first indication is equal to a first value, the purpose of the NNPF comprises a first candidate in the plurality of candidates for the purpose, or if the value of the first bit is equal to a second value, the purpose of the NNPF does not comprise the first candidate for the purpose (Deshpande Fig. 125 note nnpfc_formatting_and_purpose_flag having a value of 1 indicates that further syntax indicating the purpose of the NNPF are signaled, having a value of 0 that syntax elements related to the filter purpose will not be included).
In regard to claim 7 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 6 above. Deshpande further discloses that the first value of 1 or the second value is zero (Deshpande par. 125 note nnpfc_formatting_and_purpose_flag has values of 1 and 0).
In regard to claim 8 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Deshpande further discloses that at least one format parameter for a filtering process using the NNPF is indicated in the bitstream is dependent on a result of applying a bitwise operation on the first indication and at least one bit mask, and the at least one bit mask is used for determining the purpose of the NNPF based on the first indication (Deshpande par. 125 note table 8 for candidate purposes, further note pseudo-code in Table 6 on pg. 13, particularly starting at “if(nnpfc_formatting_and_purpose_flag)” note the ‘if’ operator is a bitwise operator determining if the value of the nnpfc_formatting_and_purpose_flag and based on whether the value is 1 or 0, the further pseudo-code is applied as a ‘bit mask’ to determine
In regard to claim 9 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Deshpande further discloses that least one format parameter for a filtering process using the NNPF is indicated in the bitstream is dependent on a value of a bit for an effective bit in the first indication (Deshpande par. 125 note nnpfc_formatting_and_purpose_flag is an effective bit that determines whether or not further filter purpose parameters are included in the bitstream).
In regard to claim 10 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Deshpande further discloses that the plurality of candidates for the purpose comprise a change of format of the at least one picture (Deshpande Table 8 on pg. 15 note nnpfc_purpose values of 2-5 include changing the picture format of the video).
In regard to claim 11 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Deshpande further discloses that the plurality of candidates for the purpose comprise a change of a color format of the at least one picture (Deshpande Table 8 on pg. 15 note nnpfc_purpose values of 2 and 4 include changing the color format of the video).
In regard to claim 12 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 11 above. Deshpande further discloses that the change of the color format comprises a change from the color format to a further color format with a chroma subsampling rate less than a chroma subsampling rate of the color format (Deshpande Table 8 on pg. 15 note nnpfc_purpose value of 2 increases the chroma resolution from 4:2:0 to a higher chroma resolution of 4:2:2 or 4:4:4, a higher resolution color format is one with less chroma subsampling), or
wherein whether a color format type is indicated in the bitstream is dependent on whether the purpose of the NNPF comprises the change of the color format.
In regard to claim 13 refer to the statement made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Deshpande further discloses that non-zero value of the first indication indicates that the NNPF is used as determined by an application (Deshpande par. 125 and table 8 note when nnpfc_formatting_and_purpose_flag is non-zero and nnpfc_purpose is 0 the NNPF is used as determined by an application).
In regard to claim 14 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 13 above. The non-zero value is the largest value in a valid range for the first indication (Deshpande par. 125 nnpfc_formatting_and_purpose_flag has a maximum value of 1)
In regard to claim 15 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Deshpande further discloses that the at least one picture comprises at least one decoded picture or at least one cropped decoded picture of the video (Deshpande Table 8 on pg. 15 note at least nnpfc_purpose values of 3-4 apply to cropped decoded pictures).
In regard to claims 16-17 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Deshpande further discloses that conversion includes encoding video into and decoding video from the bitstream (Deshpande Figs. 5-6 note encoding and decoding).
Claims 18-19 relate to an apparatus comprising a processor and a memory and a non-transitory medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform steps substantially corresponding to the method described in claim 1 above. Refer to the statements made in regard to claim 1 above for the rejection of claims 18-19 which will not be repeated here for brevity. In particular regard to claims 18 and 19 Deshpande further discloses an apparatus comprising a processor and a memory, and non-transitory media (Deshpande pars 198-199 note processors, memory (RAM) and a variety of non-transitory media).
In regard to claim 20 Deshpande further discloses storing an encoded bitstream on non-transitory media (Deshpande Fig. 1 and pars 151-153 note encoded bitstream is transmitted over a communication medium 110 which may include non-transitory storage devices).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
M. Santamaria et al., "Content-adaptive convolutional neural network post-processing filter"
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH CHARLES HALLENBECK-HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-5248. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9 A.M. to 5 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, William Vaughn can be reached at (571)272-3922. 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.
/JEREMIAH C HALLENBECK-HUBER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights