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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: further is misspelled.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: integer is misspelled.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 20 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 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) 1-5,8-10, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannuksela US 20230112309 in view of Choi US 20220337857.
Regarding claim 1, Hannuksela disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
A method for processing media data, comprising:
determining a first filtering process for one picture using a neural-network post-processing filter (NNPF) (i.e. NNRPF_id is identifying number which indicates a neural network filter) [3,5-6], and
performing a conversion between the media data and a bitstream based on the first filtering process (i.e. encoder and decoder convert between media data and a bitstream) [251,356; fig.4,9],
wherein the first filtering process applies to each cropped decoded picture, that is in a first list of cropped decoded pictures and for which one or more NNPFs are activated (i.e. the enhancement message further includes a width field for specifying a width of the luma sample array of the media item resulting by applying the post-processing filter, identified by the identifying number, to a cropped decoded output media item; and a height field for specifying a height of the luma sample array of the media item resulting by applying the post-processing filter, identified by the identifying number, to a cropped decoded output media item. Many groups of pictures are discussed and could be considered a list.) [14-15,292,412,415].
Hannuksela do/does not explicitly disclose(s) that the cropped decoded pictures are in a list.
However, in the same field of endeavor Choi discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the first filtering process applies to each cropped decoded picture, that is in a first list of cropped decoded pictures and for which one or more NNPFs are activated (i.e. In some cases, levels restrict the maximum picture size, maximum frame rate, maximum reconstruction sample rate (measured in, for example megasamples per second), maximum reference picture size, and so on.) [52]
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Hannuksela with Choi to have the first filtering process applies to each cropped decoded picture, that is in a first list of cropped decoded pictures and for which one or more NNPFs are activated.
It would be advantageous because being capable of filtering many sizes of pictures would enable the use of many different videos.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Hannuksela with Choi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein when applying the NNPF to a first picture, the filtered or interpolated pictures are generated by the NNPF by applying an NNPF process, in a patch-wise manner, to the first picture, and an order of pictures generated by the NNPF by applying the NNPF process being stored into an output tensor of the NNPF is in output order (i.e. interpolating between frames. Tensor stores the serialized NN data. The order is determined by NNRPF mode) [5,6,353,363,396,476,479-484].
Regarding claim 3, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 2, wherein the NNPF process is specified in semantics of a neural-network post-filter characteristics (NNPFC) supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message (i.e. Tensor stores the serialized NN data. The order is determined by NNRPF mode. SEI message contains this data) [5,6,353,363,396,476,479-484].
Regarding claim 4, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 2, wherein when the applied NNPF is a last NNPF that is applied to the first picture, pictures generated by the NNPF and output by the NNPF process are included into a list of NNPF output pictures, in a same order as when the pictures are stored into the output tensor of the NNPF (i.e. Tensor stores the serialized NN data. The order is determined by NNRPF mode) [5,6,22,353,363,396,476,479-484].
Regarding claim 5, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, futher comprising: determining a first post-processing filtering process using NNPFs, wherein input to the first post-processing filtering process is a first bitstream, and output of the first post-processing filtering process is a list of NNPF output pictures; and wherein the first bitstream is decoded, and the first list of cropped decoded pictures is set to be a list of cropped decoded pictures in output order resulted from decoding first bitstream (i.e. Tensor stores the serialized NN data. The output order is determined by NNRPF mode.) [5,6,22,353,363,396,476,479-484].
Regarding claim 8, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a first processing order for a group of types of SEI messages based on a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) processing order SEI message, wherein the group of types of SEI messages comprises neural-network post-filter characteristics (NNPFC) SEI messages, and the NNPFC SEI messages are allowed to be differentiated by having different NNPFC identifier values (i.e. Tensor stores the serialized NN data. The order is determined by NNRPF mode. SEI message contains this data) [5,6,353,363,396,476,479-484].
Regarding claim 9, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 8, wherein each SEI message in a group of SEI messages for which first processing order information is provided in the SEI processing order SEI message is identified at least by a first syntax element (i.e. Tensor stores the serialized NN data. The order is determined by NNRPF mode. SEI message contains this data) [5,6,353,363,396,476,479-484].
Regarding claim 10, Hannuksela meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 9, wherein the first syntax element having an index of i indicates that a first order of processing of an i-th type of SEI message for which first processing order information is provided in the SEI processing order SEI message; and wherein i is an integer (i.e. a filter activation SEI message or alike may include an index or an identifier of a neural network update that the SEI message activates) [5,6,353,363,396,427,476,479-484].
Claim 16 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
Claim 17 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6,7, and 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.
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