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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2021/0227222) (hereinafter Lee).
In regard to claim 20, claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein a bitstream generated by acts. Significantly, the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium is NOT implementing any actual method; no instructions/steps are being executed. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data output from and/or generated by a series of acts. In other words, these claims are directed to a mere machine-readable medium storing data content (a bitstream generated by a method).
Applicant therefore seeks to patent the storage of a bitstream in the abstract. In other words, the claim seeks to patent the content of the information (bitstream comprising video information) and not the process itself. Moreover, this stored bitstream does not impose any definitive physical organization on the data as there is no functional relationship between the bitstream and the storage medium. In conclusion, claim 13 and any claims depending therefrom are directed to mere data content (bitstream generated by a series of acts) stored as a bitstream on a computer-readable storage medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, the Examiner found and continues to find that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, this claim is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. Therefore, claim 20 is anticipated by Lee, as Lee discloses a computer readable medium storing a coded bitstream. Lee discloses:
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored therein a bitstream comprising video information generated by acts [¶0024; computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream generated by a video coding method] comprising:
Claim(s) 1-4, 14, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Li US 20220329837.
Regarding claim 1, Li meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A method for video processing, comprising:
determining, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, which video unit is specified to be an input video unit of a filtering procedure that is applied to a current video unit (i.e. Indicators of multiple NN filter model indices may be signaled in the SEI message for one video unit, and the selection of the index for a sub-region within the one video unit may be further determined on-the-fly.) [264-267]; and
performing the conversion based on the filtering procedure (i.e. encoder converts video unit into a bitstream.) [331-353,354-264; fig. 5,17,18].
Regarding claim 2, Li meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the filtering procedure comprises one of: a post-processing filtering procedure, a neural network (NN)-based post processing filtering procedure, an NN-based in-loop filtering procedure, or a non-NN-based in-loop filtering procedure (i.e. in loop or post processing NN filter) [196, 373].
Regarding claim 3, Li meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the video unit comprises one of: a picture, a slice, a sub-picture, or a tile, wherein the input video unit comprises one of: an input picture, an input slice, an input sub-picture, or an input tile. and wherein the current video unit comprises one of: a current picture, a current slice, a current sub-picture, or a current tile (i.e. The video unit may be a sequence of pictures, a picture, a slice, a tile, a brick, a subpicture, a coding tree unit (CTU), a CTU row, a coding unit (CU), etc.) [198].
Regarding claim 4, Li meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1,
wherein the current video unit is specified to be the input video unit of the filter (i.e. Indicators of multiple NN filter model indices may be signaled in the SEI message for one video unit, and the selection of the index for a sub-region within the one video unit may be further determined on-the-fly.) [12-13,264-267], and/or
wherein a neural-network post-filter (NNPF) activation (NNPFA) supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message or a NNPF characteristics (NNPFC) SET message comprises a syntax element indicating whether the current video unit is the only input video unit, and/or
wherein a NNPFA SEI message or a NNPFC SEI message comprises a syntax element indicating whether the input video unit comprises the current video unit, and/or
wherein at least the current video unit is employed as one of input video units of the filter, and/or
wherein input video units of the filtering procedure are defined according to a condition based on whether there is one or more input video units employed for the filtering procedure.
Regarding claim 14, Li meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein a mechanism of upsampling a picture rate is specified (i.e. NNPFC purpose used to indicate upsampling type (picture rate)) [182; table 8], and/or wherein a video unit which is not the current video unit to be input to the filtering procedure is indicted by a picture order count (POC) or a POC distance, and/or wherein a video unit which is not the current video unit to be input to the filtering procedure is indicted by decoding order index (DOI) or DOI distance, and/or wherein a video unit which is not the current video unit to be input to the filtering procedure is indicated by at least one of: a reference index or a reference list.
Regarding claim 17, Li meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the video unit into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the video unit from the bitstream (i.e. encoder converts video unit into a bitstream.) [331-353,354-264; fig. 5,17,18].
Claim 18 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
Claim 19 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
Claim 20 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
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) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Deshpande US 20240221231.
Regarding claim 5, Li do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the current video unit is the input video unit of the filter, if only one input video unit of the post-processing filter is supported, and/or
wherein the syntax element is an NNPFA input is the current picture (nnpfa input is curr) syntax element, and/or
wherein the input video units are defined according to temporal layers, and/or
wherein the input video units are defined according to quantization parameters (QPs), and/or
wherein input video units with a target slice type with current video unit are used for the filtering procedure, and/or
wherein input video units with a target slice type with current video unit are not used for the filtering procedure.
However, in the same field of endeavor Deshpande discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the current video unit is the input video unit of the filter, if only one input video unit of the post-processing filter is supported, and/or
wherein the syntax element is an NNPFA input is the current picture (nnpfa input is curr) syntax element (i.e. nnpfa_target_id indicates the target neural-network post-processing filter, which is specified by one or more neural-network post-processing filter characteristics SEI messages that pertain to the current picture and have nnpfc_id equal to nnfpa_target_id.) [253-270; table 12], and/or
wherein the input video units are defined according to temporal layers, and/or
wherein the input video units are defined according to quantization parameters (QPs), and/or
wherein input video units with a target slice type with current video unit are used for the filtering procedure, and/or
wherein input video units with a target slice type with current video unit are not used for the filtering procedure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Li with Deshpande to have wherein the current video unit is the input video unit of the filter, if only one input video unit of the post-processing filter is supported, and/or wherein the syntax element is an NNPFA input is the current picture (nnpfa input is curr) syntax element.
It would be advantageous because syntax elements enable information to be signaled in the bitstream thus saving decoder computation time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Li with Deshpande to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Li meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 5,
wherein input video units with same temporal level with the current video unit are used for the filtering procedure (i.e. More specifically, each array assigned by temporal layer index (TempIdx) may compose filter sets of previously decoded pictures with equal to lower TempIdx) [140], and/or
wherein input video units with lower temporal level than the current video unit are used for the filtering procedure [140], and/or
wherein input video units with higher temporal level than the current video unit are used for the filtering procedure, and/or
wherein input video units with same temporal level with the current video unit are not used for the filtering procedure, and/or
wherein input video units with lower temporal level than the current video unit are not used for the filtering procedure, and/or
wherein input video units with higher temporal level than the current video unit are not used for the filtering procedure.
Regarding claim 7, Li meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 6, wherein input video units with same QP with the current video unit are used for the filtering procedure (i.e. filter model of current video selected based on Qp. One of these options would necessarily be met.) [247,260], and/or wherein input video units with lower QP than the current video unit are used for the filtering procedure, and/or wherein input video units with higher QP than the current video unit are used for the filtering procedure, and/or wherein input video units with same QP with the current video unit are not used for the filtering procedure, and/or wherein input video units with lower QP than the current video unit are not used for the filtering procedure, and/or wherein input video units with higher QP than the current video unit are not used for the filtering procedure.
Regarding claim 8, Deshpande meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein a purpose of the filtering procedure comprises at least one of: resolution upsampling, picture rate upsampling, chroma upsampling (i.e. NNPFC purpose used to indicate upsampling type) [182; table 8], visual quality improvement, or bitdepth increase, and/or wherein whether input video units to be used for the filtering procedure are available in a decoded picture buffer (DPB) is specified, and/or wherein whether input video units to be used for the filtering procedure are reference pictures of the current video is specified, and/or wherein a maximum picture buffer size needed for a storage of input and output video units of the filtering procedure is specified.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13, 15, and 16 are 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.
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