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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the recited mask and its application must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the mask and its application as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(b) because they are incomplete. 37 CFR 1.83(b) reads as follows:
When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because figures 2-13 lack reference numerals. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because said abstract is not in narrative form as required. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: mask.
Namely, mask is generally used in signal processing to refer to a mask applied to an image to mask out undesired portions of the image. However, in the specification, mask would seem to be defined as a clipping function, see definition thereof at paragraph 00137 which is an unclear equation that seems to be a clipping equation applied to values per se from what can be understood, and not what is understood as a mask by those of skill in the art.
Indeed the specification seems to be AI-generated dreck, and is nearly incomprehensible. For example, the equations and applied math seem to be an AI-generated version, and seems to be a caricature of actual signal processing mathematics, but are not genuine signal processing algorithms. Indeed, the specification is written so obliquely and at odds with the common terminology of those of skill in the art, see for example, mask, it cannot be understood how this application fulfills the Notice Requirement of a Patent Application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “mask” in claims 1-20 is used by the claim(s) to mean a clipping function, (paragraph 00137) while the accepted meaning is a mask applied to an image. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Such misdirection is pervasive throughout the claims, for example probability parameter sample would appear to be an image value for a portion of the image.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
For example, in the first feature of claim 1 alone, the recited for a conversion between visual data and a bitstream of the visual data with a neural network (NN)-based model, is not in any semblance of form that which would be understood by one of skill in the art. For example, conversion is not the usual term, the usual term is some form of coding, such that a understandable recitation of the above feature would read using a neural network to encode an image into a bitstream. The rest of claim 1 is similarly misleading and opaque, and for purposes of examination will be interpreted as applying a clipping function by a neural network when encoding an image.
The rest of the claims, for example claim 2, are equally opaque and misleading such that a claim set understandable to one of ordinary skill in the art must be submitted. For example in claim 2, the recited adjusting, based on the mask sample, one or more samples associated with the latent representation of the visual data, is merely the application of the clipping function per claim 1, and is duplicative of claim 1.
Indeed, the claims cannot fairly be deemed to fulfill the Notice Requirement required of claims because one of skill in the art would have to speculatively translate the claims into meaningful language, and the thus the general public would have no chance of understanding what is meant by the language of the claims themselves, and thus the claims cannot provide any Notice to the Public as to the claim scope.
It is required to submit claims that are definite and fulfill statutory requirements.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnston (US 2021/0358180).
Regarding independent claim 1, Johnston discloses a method for visual data processing, (Abstract, Figure 3, image data processing) comprising: determining, for a conversion between visual data and a bitstream of the visual data with a neural network (NN)-based model, (paragraph 0003, Figure 3, compression/coding of visual data into a bitstream) a mask sample by performing one or more integer operations on at least one probability parameter sample and at least one value, (paragraph 0004, integer operations) wherein the mask sample is used in a mask and scale process of the NN-based model, (paragraphs 0004/ 0014, activation function of clipping operation applied to data to obtain samples) the at least one probability parameter sample is associated with a latent representation of the visual data, (Figure 3, processing visual data) and each of the at least one probability parameter sample and the at least one value is an integer; (paragraph 0013, integer operations) and performing the conversion based on the mask sample. (paragraph 0003, image data compression performed per above)
Regarding independent claims 18 and 19, claims 18 and 19 are computer program product claims reciting features similar to claim 1, and are therefore also disclosed by Johnston for reasons similar to claim 1. Johnston identically discloses the recited processor and storage. (paragraph 0126/0127)
Regarding independent claim 20, per the preamble of claim 20, claim 20 reduces to a product by process claim of A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of visual data which is generated by a method. Johnston identically discloses the same. (paragraph 0127, storage media storing data)
Per the above rejection, claims 2-17 are indefinite and not amenable to examination in current form. Clarification of the claims is required as per above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jiang (US 11,935,271) implicates neural networks with masking and integer operations.
Wang (US 2023/0343128) implicates neural networks with masking/integer operations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER whose telephone number is (303)297-4401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-6 MT.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571 272 2988. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER/Examiner, Art Unit 2485
/JAYANTI K PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2485 September 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights