CTNF 19/264,485 CTNF 88395 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/09/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification 06-31 AIA The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 5, 7-10 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DING et al. as published as US 20220385896 A1, hereinafter “DING” . Regarding claim 1. DING discloses a method for processing media data ( 0111; Figure 7; “[0111] FIG. 7 shows a diagram of a video encoder (703) according to another embodiment of the disclosure. The video encoder (703) is configured to receive a processing block (e.g., a prediction block) of sample values within a current video picture in a sequence of video pictures, and encode the processing block into a coded picture that is part of a coded video sequence. In an example, the video encoder (703) is used in the place of the video encoder (403) in the FIG. 4 example.” ), comprising: determining a first indication that indicates information related to usage of a video resulting by a neural-network post-filter (NNPF) ( 0207; Figure 19B; “[0207] Referring to FIG. 19B, at an encoder side, the one or more parameters of the post-filtering NN in the post-filtering module (1910) can be determined based on the reconstructed x in the post-filtering training. The encoded {circumflex over (x)} can be generated based on the input signal x. In an embodiment, the post-filtering information indicating the determined one or more parameters of the post-filtering NN can be encoded. The post-filtering information corresponds to the encoded {circumflex over (x)}. The encoded {circumflex over (x)} and the post-filtering information can be included in the coded video bitstream.” ), wherein the first indication being equal to a first value indicates that a suitable usage of the video resulting by the NNPF or a video bitstream is unknown ( 0254-0255; Figs. 16-20B; “[0254] … For example, the deblocking filter process can be performed by horizontal filtering for .vertical boundaries for an image first, followed by vertical filtering for horizontal boundaries for the image. Filtering can be applied to 8x8 block boundaries which are determined to be filtered, both for luma and chroma components. In an example, 4x4 block boundaries are not processed in order to reduce the complexity.”, “[0255] A boundary strength (BS) can be used to indicate a degree or strength of the deblocking filter process. In an embodiment, a value of 2 for BS indicates strong filtering, 1 indicates weak filtering, and 0 indicates no deblocking filtering.” ); and performing a conversion between the media data and a bitstream of the media data based on the first indication ( 0213; Figs. 19A-20B; “[0213] Referring to FIGS. 19B, 20A, and 20B, the encoded {circumflex over (x)} can be decoded by the video decoder (2000A) or (2000B). For example, the encoded {circumflex over (x)} is reconstructed by the main decoder network (915) to generate the reconstructed x. The reconstructed x can be post-filtered based on the post-filtering NN that is determined (e.g., updated) based on the one or more parameters. In an example, the reconstructed x is post-filtered based on the updated post-filtering NN.” ). Regarding claim 2. DING discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the suitable usage of the video resulting by the NNPF comprises a suitable usage of the video resulting by the NNPF for user viewing or a suitable usage of the video resulting by the NNPF for machine analysis ( 0207; Figure 19B ). Regarding claim 3. DING discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first indication is included in a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message ( 0075; Figure 5; “The control information for the rendering device(s) may be in the form of Supplemental Enhancement Information (SEI messages) ). Regarding claim 5. DING discloses the method of claim 1, wherein no value of the first indication is specified to indicate suitable for any usage ( 0254-0255; Figs. 16-20B; “[0254] … For example, the deblocking filter process can be performed by horizontal filtering for .vertical boundaries for an image first, followed by vertical filtering for horizontal boundaries for the image. Filtering can be applied to 8x8 block boundaries which are determined to be filtered, both for luma and chroma components. In an example, 4x4 block boundaries are not processed in order to reduce the complexity.”, “[0255] A boundary strength (BS) can be used to indicate a degree or strength of the deblocking filter process. In an embodiment, a value of 2 for BS indicates strong filtering, 1 indicates weak filtering, and 0 indicates no deblocking filtering.” ). Regarding claim 7. DING discloses the method of claim 1, wherein when a value of neural-network post-filter characteristics (NNPFC) target usage, denoted as nnpfc_target_usage, indicates that filtered content is expected to be provided as input to machine analysis, one or more types of machine analysis for which the filtered content is suitable to be used as input is signaled in the bitstream ( 0176, 01799 and 0215; Figures 6B and 19B-20B ). Regarding claim 8. DING discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a second indication indicates a suitable or target usage of a video bitstream, certain operation points of a bitstream, a coded video sequence (CVS) ( 0111-0119; Figures 6-8 ), certain operation points within a CVS, a coded layer video sequence (CLVS), or certain temporal subsets of a CLVS, and wherein the second indication is included in a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message ( 0074-0077, 0082-0099, 0106; Figures 5-8 ). Regarding claim 9. DING discloses the method of claim 1, wherein an operation point is a temporal subset of an output layer set (OLS), wherein the operation point is identified by an OLS index and a highest value of temporal identifier (TemporalId), and wherein an OLS is a set of layers for which one or more layers are specified as output layers ( 0086, 0104-0107 and 0111; Figures 4-7 ). Regarding claim 10. DING discloses the method of claim 1, wherein when a suboptimal user viewing indication supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message is present for any picture with a particular temporal sublayer identifier equal to a temporal identifier (tId) of a coded layer video sequence (CLVS), a suboptimal user viewing indication SEI message shall be present in a first picture unit, in a decoding order, within a CLVS that has a temporal sublayer identifier equal to tId and shall not be present in any picture unit of the CLVS with a temporal sublayer identifier not equal to tId ( 0086, 0104-0107 and 0111; Figures 4-7 ). Regarding claim 16. DING discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the media data into the bitstream ( 0071, 0118, 0195 and 0204-0205; Figures 4 and 7 ). Regarding claim 17. DING discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the media data from the bitstream ( 0195 and 0216-0217; Figures 4 and 6 ). Regarding claim 18. Apparatus claim 18 is drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, apparatus claim 18 corresponds to method claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above. Regarding claim 19. Non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 19 is drawn to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of using the corresponding to the method of using the same as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 19 corresponds to the method claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above. Regarding claim 20. Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory medium storing bitstream and the body of the claim recites steps/elements that describe how the bitstream is generated. These steps are not performed by an intended computer, and the video is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the generation of the bitstream and intended computer system. As result, the claim limitations that describe the generation of the bitstream are non-functional descriptive material (see MPEP §2113 and §2111.05(III)) and are afforded no patentable weight. Claim 20 directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (CRM) storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method. The claim does not recite that the CRM contains executable instruction, that when executed, implement the encoding method. The bitstream is a product produced by the encoding method. Therefore, the claims are not limited to the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. (See MPEP 2113 - Product-by-Process claims.) Hence, the encoding method steps recited are given patentable weight only to structures in the bitstream that are implied by the steps. To be given patentable weight, the CRM and the bitstream (i.e. descriptive material) must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the descriptive material performs some function with respect to the CRM to which it is associated. See 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 CRM storing the claimed bitstream in claim 19 merely services as a support for the CRM of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and the CRM. 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 DING which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream ( 0071; The encoded video data (404) (or encoded video bitstream), depicted as a thin line to emphasize the lower data volume when compared to the stream of video pictures (402), can be stored on a streaming server (405) for future use. ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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, 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DING as applied to claims 1, 3 and 5 above, in view of LI et al. as published as US 20200304836 A1, hereinafter “LI” . Regarding claim 4. DING discloses the method of claim 3, but failed to disclose wherein the SEI message is a neural-network post-filter characteristics (NNPFC) SEI message. LI, however, in the same field of endeavor, shows wherein the SEI message is a neural-network post-filter characteristics (NNPFC) SEI message ( 0027-0031 and 0043-0044; Figures 2A-2B ). It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the NNPFC SEI message of LI in the Video coding and decoding of DING in order to improve the efficient of video encoding and decoding and yields a predictable result. Regarding claim 6. DING discloses the method of claim 5, but failed to disclose wherein the first indication is neural-network post-filter characteristics (NNPFC) target usage, denoted as nnpfc_target_usage. LI, however, in the same field of endeavor, shows wherein the first indication is neural-network post-filter characteristics (NNPFC) target usage, denoted as nnpfc_target_usage ( 0027-0031 and 0043-0044; Figures 2A-2B ). The motivation used on the rejection of claim 4 to combine the LI prior art into the DING prior art still applies to the rejection of claim 6 . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 11-15 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASMAMAW G TARKO whose telephone number is (571)272-7493. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am-5pm EST. 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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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. /ASMAMAW G TARKO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482 Application/Control Number: 19/264,485 Page 2 Art Unit: 2482 Application/Control Number: 19/264,485 Page 3 Art Unit: 2482
Prosecution Insights