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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is response to the communication filed on May 12, 2025. Claims 11-30 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The argument regarding art rejection addressed in the new rejection.
Regarding 101 rejection applicant argues, the Action characterizes the claim as a mental process. (Office Action, at pp. 3-4). Applicant respectfully disagrees. Encoding images into different file streams and storing the file streams in HEIF format is not a process that is performed mentally, but is instead a very specific computer implementation.
In response examiner respectfully disagree. Human can mentally encode image. For example user can mentally assign a number (encoding) to the image and memorize (stored) it. For sake of argument even though the clamed limitation interpreted as additional limitation, still these are insignificant extra solution activity as it can be done with generic computer. The courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding the claim 11, it recites an encoding controller configured to generate, from a received image, file streams obtained by encoding the received image, the file streams including a first file stream and a second file stream, and to respectively store the file streams in each of a plurality of files, the plurality of files being High Efficiency Image File Format (HEIF) files, wherein first file stream is stored in a first HEIF file of the plurality of files and the second file stream is stored in a second HEIF file of the plurality of files, and the first HEIF file and the second HEIF file include data different from each other in at least one of codec, chroma format, bit depth, or image size; the first HEIF file is in an image item format, and the second HEIF file is in an image sequence format.
The claims limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Claim recites generate file stream from received image. The “received image” essentially mean that data being already received. Further, the limitation generate file stream, wherein the phrase “stream” has no corresponding action. Hence the generate file steam is nothing but static file. Human brain can read received image data and encode it mentally and memorize (stored) it as it claimed. Furthermore, the limitation “High Efficiency Image File Format” does not have any corresponding action. Applicant just label it as “High Efficiency Image File Format”. The claim further recited “stored” first file and second file. Human brain can mentally memorize the data (file) as generated, if necessary, user can use physical aid (pen and paper). Hence, the limitations are mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III, B, If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand.").
No additional limitation has been recited in the claim that is significantly more. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, no additional limitation has been recited in the claims. The courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 is dependent on claim 11 and includes all the limitations of claim 11. Therefore, claim1 2 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the additional limitations of wherein the received image has a size, a chroma format, and a bit depth greater than or equal to a size, a chroma format, and a bit depth of at least one of the file streams, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 13 is dependent on claim 11 and includes all the limitations of claim 11. Therefore, claim 13 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the additional limitations of wherein one or more of a codec, a chroma format, a bit depth, or an image size of at least one of the file streams is set depending on a user designation, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 14 is dependent on claim 11 and includes all the limitations of claim 11. Therefore, claim 14 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the additional limitations of wherein at least one of the file streams is a RAW file in which a RAW image is stored, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 15 is dependent on claim 11 and includes all the limitations of claim 11. Therefore, claim 15 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the additional limitations of wherein the encoding controller includes a first semiconductor chip, and the first semiconductor chip includes: a first generation unit that generates the first file stream; and a second generation unit that generates the second file stream, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 16 is dependent on claim 11 and includes all the limitations of claim 11. Therefore, claim 16 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the additional limitations of wherein the encoding controller includes a first semiconductor chip and a second semiconductor chip, and the first semiconductor chip generates the first file stream, and the second semiconductor chip generates the second file stream, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 17 is dependent on claim 16 and includes all the limitations of claim 16. Therefore, claim 17 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the additional limitations of wherein the first semiconductor chip accesses the received image, generates the first file stream from the received image, and transfers the received image to the second semiconductor chip, and the second semiconductor chip generates the second file stream from the received image, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 18 is dependent on claim 11 and includes all the limitations of claim 11. Therefore, claim 18 recites the same abstract idea of data processing. The claim recites the additional limitations of wherein the first file stream is obtained by performing HEVC encoding, and the second file stream is obtained by performing JPEG encoding, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
As to claims 19-30, they have similar limitations as of claims 11-18 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 11-18 above.
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 (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 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.
Claims 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizu (Pub. No. : JP 2017118413 A) in the view of Turetzkey et al. (Patent No. : US 9235929 B2) and Matsuoka (Pub. No. : US 20200074602 A1).
As to claim 11 Ishizu teaches a data processing device comprising
generate, from a received image, file streams obtained by encoding the received image, the file streams including a first file stream and a second file stream, and to respectively store the file streams in each of a plurality of files (page 4 last two paragraph: when shooting is performed in a mode in which a RAW image and a JPEG image are simultaneously shot, two image files in which the same object is recorded in different formats are generated), wherein
wherein first file stream is stored in a first file of the plurality of files and the second file stream is stored in a second file of the plurality of files (page 5 first paragraph: saving image file groups in which the same object is recorded in different formats, a naming rule for saving in the same folder with the same file number is used as a predetermined related rule. For example, the raw image is A: / DCIM / 100__01 / IMG_0002. CR2 and the JPEG image is A: / DCIM / 100 ___ 01 / IMG_0002. JPG.), and
the first file and the second file include data different from each other (page 4 last paragraph: two image files in which the same object is recorded in different formats are generated).
Ishizu does not explicitly disclose the controller being an encoding controller encoding the received-an image and data different in at least one of codec, chroma format, or bit depth. However, similar art Turetzkey teaches the controller being an encoding controller encoding the received-an image and data different in at least one of codec, chroma format, or bit depth (column 5 lines 45-51: encoding module 310 may encode the user image data using a video codec).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ishizu by adding above limitation as taught by Turetzkey to efficiently process the user image data (Turetzkey, column 6 lines 7-8).
Ishizu and Turetzkey do not explicitly disclose but Matsuoka teaches the plurality of files being High Efficiency Image File Format (HEIF) files (paragraph [0048]: a container in HEIF (High Efficiency Image File Format), which is an image file format defined by MPEG (Moving Picture Experts Group) -H Part 12 (ISO/IEC 23008-12), is adopted. HEIF has a feature that not only an actual image, but a thumbnail, a plurality of temporally related files, and metadata such as Exif and XMP can be stored in one file);
The first HEIF file is in an image item formate, and the second HEIF file is in an image sequence format (paragraph [0048]: actual image data 75 is stored in an area and image sequence encoded in HEVC can also be stored in file). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ishizu and Turetzkey adding above limitation as taught by Matsuoka to store data in one file.
As to claim 12 Ishizu together with Turetzkey and Matsuoka teaches a data processing device according to claim 11. Turetzkey teaches wherein the received image has a size, a chroma format, and a bit depth greater than or equal to a size, a chroma format, and a bit depth of at least one of the file streams (column 5 lines 34-44).
As to claim 13 Ishizu together with Turetzkey and Matsuoka teaches a data processing device according to claim 11. Turetzkey teaches wherein one or more of a codec, a chroma format, a bit depth, or an image size of at least one of the file streams is set depending on a user designation (column 5 lines 45-65).
As to claim 14 Ishizu together with Turetzkey and Matsuoka teaches a data processing device according to claim 11. Ishizu teaches wherein at least one of the file streams is a RAW file in which a RAW image is stored (page 4 last paragraph).
As to claim 15 Ishizu together with Turetzkey and Matsuoka teaches a data processing device according to claim 11. Turetzkey teaches wherein the encoding controller includes a first semiconductor chip, and the first semiconductor chip includes: a first generation unit that generates the first file stream; and a second generation unit that generates the second file stream (column 9 lines 15-39).
As to claim 16 Ishizu together with Turetzkey and Matsuoka teaches a data processing device according to claim 11. Ishizu teaches wherein the encoding controller includes a first semiconductor chip and a second semiconductor chip, and the first semiconductor chip generates the first file stream, and the second semiconductor chip generates the second file stream (page 4 last two paragraph).
As to claim 17 Ishizu together with Turetzkey and Matsuoka teaches a data processing device according to claim 16. Ishizu teaches wherein the first semiconductor chip accesses the received image, generates the first file stream from the received image, and transfers the received image to the second semiconductor chip, and the second semiconductor chip generates the second file stream from the received image (page 4 last two paragraph)
As to claim 18 Ishizu together with Turetzkey and Matsuoka teaches a data processing device according to claim 11. Turetzkey teaches wherein the first file stream is obtained by performing HEVC encoding, and the second file stream is obtained by performing JPEG encoding (column 10 lines 9-47).
As to claims 19-30, they have similar limitations as of claims 11-18 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 11-18 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD I UDDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/MD I UDDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169