DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to the amendment filed 9/9/2025.
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 1-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, cited term of “wherein using the entropy coding technique is based on an artificial intelligence system trained to classify images as compressed or uncompressed” (line 11-12) is vague and renders the claims indefinite. It is unclear that cited “artificial intelligence system” is a part of claimed system or not. If the artificial intelligence system is belong to claimed system, it is unclear that within two cited components of claimed system (a processor and a memory storing instructions), which one of them comprising the artificial intelligence system; claim does not specify it. If the artificial intelligence system is not belong to claimed system (outside of claimed system), it is unclear that how the artificial intelligence system connecting to claimed system; claim does not specify it.
Claims 2-8 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 1 through their dependency from claim 1.
Therefore proper amendments are required in order to clarify the scopes of the claims and overcome the rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birnbaum et al “Wave Atoms for Lossy Compression of Digital Holograms”, 2019 Data Compression Conference (DCC), IEEE, 26 March 2019 (2019-03-26), pages 398-407; in a view of Van Rozendaal et al (US 20220103839).
Regarding Claim 1, Birnbaum teaches a system for image or video compression (abstract; fig. 3) comprising:
a system (fig. 3) to:
receive a complex hologram image (fig. 3, Real/Image part original, input);
encode a latent code for a real component and an imaginary component of the complex hologram image (fig. 3, 2D orthogonal Wave atom transform);
quantize the latent code (fig. 3, Scalar quantization global); and
compress the quantized latent code using an entropy coding technique (fig. 3, Entropy coding (EBCOT) ) to obtain a compressed image (fig. 3, Real/Image part compressed, output).
But Birnbaum does not specifically disclose that wherein a processor; and a memory storing instructions, which executed by the processor.
However, Van Rozendaal teaches a techniques for compressing image data (abstract; fig. 1 and fig. 9), wherein a processor (fig. 1, 102, CPU); and
a memory storing instructions, which when executed by the processor (fig. 1, 118, 120; ¶[0062], line 1-18, an image processing system 100 can include a central processing unit (CPU) 102 or a multi-core CPU configured to perform one or more of the functions. Instructions executed at the CPU 102 may be loaded from a program memory associated with the CPU 102 and/or a memory block 118).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for image of Birnbaum by the techniques for compressing image data of Van Rozendaal for a purpose for reducing the amount of data that is needed for storage and/or transmission of image and video data are thus advantageous (¶[0046], line 10-13).
Further, limitation term “wherein using the entropy coding technique is based on an artificial intelligence system trained to classify images as compressed or uncompressed” is related to a process of compressing the quantized latent code. it is a product-by-process claim, for a product-by-process claim even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 2, Birnbaum - Van Rozendaal combination teaches that the system of claim 1, wherein the complex hologram image is received as a 6- channel tensor input (page 403, line 14-16, Holograms of this kind, are readily obtained in color, as disclosed in Birnbaum; --- for a color hologram there are 3 complex channels each with 2 parts (real and imaginary)).
Regarding Claim 3, Birnbaum - Van Rozendaal combination teaches that the system of claim 1, wherein the quantized latent code is compressed using a probability model that relates to lossless data (fig. 3, Entropy coding (EBCOT), as disclosed in Birnbaum; --- EBCOT is a context adaptive arithmetic encoder based on a probability model).
Regarding Claim 4, Birnbaum - Van Rozendaal combination teaches that the system of claim 3, wherein the entropy coding technique employs arithmetic coding such that the compressed quantized latent code is storable losslessly at a bit rate based on the probability model (fig. 3, Entropy coding (EBCOT), as disclosed in Birnbaum; ¶[0147], line 1-14, The arithmetic encoder 706 can use a latent prior 708 to entropy code the latent code 704 and generate a bitstream 710 (e.g., bitstream b2') to be transmitted to the arithmetic decoder 716. The bitstream 710 can include compressed data representing the latent code 704. The latent prior 708 can be used to convert latent code 704 (latent z;) into bitstream 710 using lossless compression, as disclosed in Van Rozendaal).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birnbaum et al “Wave Atoms for Lossy Compression of Digital Holograms”, 2019 Data Compression Conference (DCC), IEEE, 26 March 2019 (2019-03-26), pages 398-407; in a view of Van Rozendaal et al (US 20220103839), further in a view of Bo, "Deep Learning Approach for Computer-Generated Holography”, 2021 IEEE 3RD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON FRONTIERS TECHNOLOGY OF INFORMATION AND COMPUTER (ICFTIC), IEEE, 12, November 2021 (2021-11-12), pages 1-5.
Regarding Claim 8, Birnbaum - Van Rozendaal combination discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that that the system of claim 1, wherein the system is trained as a conditional generative adversarial network (GAN) with an encoder and a generator acting as a rival to a discriminator.
However, Bo teaches Computer-generated holography (CGH) (abstract; fig. 2), wherein the system is trained as a conditional generative adversarial network (GAN) with an encoder and a generator acting as a rival to a discriminator (fig. 2, Work flow of the generative adversarial network (--GAN) for CGH, Generator, Discriminator).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for image of Birnbaum - Van Rozendaal combination by the Computer-generated holography of Bo for a purpose to generate holograms for curved surface, which has great potential to enlarge the viewing angle of the hologram (page 13, right col. line 20-26).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 are rejected as they depend on claim 1 which has a 112 issue (please see above), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims in case the 112 rejection is overcome by proper amendments.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art taken singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper.
In regard to claim 5, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest system for image or video compression further comprise wherein encode a residual to a latent code, wherein the standard compressed frame and the residual to the latent code are transmitted together for each frame.
Claims 6-7 depend on claim 5, comprising the same allowable subject matters.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 9/9/2025 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues that:
(A) none of Birnbaum, Van Rozendaal or Bo discloses or suggests at least "using the entropy coding technique is based on an artificial intelligence system trained to classify images as compressed or uncompressed," as recited in currently amended independent claim 1.
In response to applicant's argument(s):
(A) the amendment term has 112 issue, please see above. Further, the amendment term is related to a process of compressing the quantized latent code. it is a product-by-process claim, for a product-by-process claim even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Jie Lei whose telephone number is (571) 272 7231. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 8:00 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by the telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on (571) 272 3689.The Fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE LEI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872