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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/17/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
In light of the changes made to the specification, the objection pertaining to a non-descriptive title is withdrawn.
In light of the changes made to claims 17, 19 and 26, the invocations of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) are withdrawn.
In light of the changes made to claims 16 and 30, the rejections pertaining to 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn.
In light of the changes made to claim 30, the objection pertaining to lack of antecedent basis is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Terada and Tanaka fail to teach or disclose “dividing each of a plurality of still image frames of a video including the plurality of still image frames into a plurality of blocks, encoding the plurality of blocks individually on a per block basis”, particularly stating that to “encode individually” refers to encoding to be performed such that an image can be decoded from only the encoded data.
Furthermore, regarding claim 10 applicant argues that Kova fails to teach “wherein an encoding scheme for the video is a Motion JPEG-based scheme”, and that Kova is merely describing a scheme of encoding a still image, and not videos as per currently claimed.
However, reading the claims in the broadest reasonable sense, the examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “individual” encoding is that of encoding an image to be performed such that an image can be decoded from only encoded data, in other words, an encoding scheme using a difference between target encoding units is not an encoding scheme of being individually encoded) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
That is, the claim merely states the use of encoding a plurality of blocks individually, but such a word does not hold such a context in its entirety as per currently claimed. The examiner recommends adding such claim language which would properly define “individually” to be defined as per applicant’s wishes.
Additionally, the examiner notes that even with such a definition, such a technique is taught by Terada, and well-understood in the art, in the form of Intra-Prediction --- wherein only the encoded data within the frame is used to decode the frame/slice/video. Terada teaches the use of both Intra-Prediction and Inter-Prediction [Inter-Prediction indeed requiring difference between encoding units and is thus not self-contained in the manner that Intra-Prediction], however the claim language uses the language “comprising”, and thus is sufficiently taught by Terada as the technique is indeed comprised within Terada’s teachings, as opposed to if “consisting” was used wherein only Intra-Prediction is allowed with such language, and thus Terada would be overcome, in addition to incorporating language from ¶0040 as discussed. The examiner notes that perhaps showing that each block being in the form they describe may also overcome Terada, as not every block is intra-predicted under Terada, in addition to properly defining “individual” encoding as described above.
Furthermore, with regards to claim 10, Kova teaches as seen in at least col. 1, li. 56 – col. 2, li. 2, col. 2, li. 18-38, and col. 2, li. 60 – col. 3, li. 6 wherein their techniques may apply to both still image data as well as image data, and in such a context col. 8, li. 51 – col. 9, li. 3 that the image compression for well-known JPEG standards may be used for both images of still image data as well as images of video signal data.
Therefore the rejection of claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are maintained. Regarding arguments pertaining to claim(s) 3, 14, 17, 19 and 26, for reasons similar to those discussed above for claim 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Therefore the rejection of claim(s) 3, 14, 17, 19 and 26 is/are maintained. Regarding claim(s) 2, 4-13, 16, 18, 20-25, 27-30 the claim(s) is/are dependent upon claim(s) 1, 3, 14, 17, 19 and 26 and are still rejected under the same basis as claim(s) 1, 3, 14, 17, 19 and 26 and the arguments presented above.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 11-14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 26-28 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada et al. (“Tera”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2018/0184123) in view of Tanaka et al. (“Tanaka”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2010/0246673).
In regards to claim 1, Tera teaches a video communication method comprising:
dividing each of a plurality of still image frames of a video including the plurality of still image frames into a plurality of blocks (See ¶0113 and 0246),
encoding the plurality of blocks individually on a per block basis (See ¶0113 and 0246), and
transmitting an encoded block obtained by encoding a block of the plurality of blocks by a connectionless communication scheme (See ¶0517-0520 in view of FIG. 71); and
reconstructing, for each of the plurality of still image frames, a still image frame by allocating, at a corresponding position, a decoded block generated by decoding the encoded block of one said still image frame (See ¶0480).
Tera, however, fails to teach the encoded block being received in an encoded block reception period corresponding to the one still image frame; wherein the encoded block reception period is a period from a current frame start time to a time at which a certain time has elapsed, the certain time being obtained by adding a margin time to an expected time for receiving all encoded blocks of one frame.
In a similar endeavor Tanaka teaches the encoded block being received in an encoded block reception period corresponding to the one still image frame (See ¶0071-0072 wherein coded picture data may be received within a given period of time, which is predicted/estimated according to the reception time of previous pictures);
wherein the encoded block reception period is a period from a current frame start time to a time at which a certain time has elapsed, the certain time being obtained by adding a margin time to an expected time for receiving all encoded blocks of one frame (See ¶0071-0072 in view of 0325-0328 and 0800 wherein the actual period of time of reception of an image is the estimated historical time as described above plus [or minus] the difference prediction error, which may also be described as a prescribed margin [to the mean value of the differences between those images received in the past]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Tanaka into Tera because it allows for such errors of time intervals to be fixed as described in ¶0022-0023, specifically in that accuracy may thus be improved in the prediction of time interval for receiving image data.
In regards to claim 3, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Tera in view of Tanaka.
In regards to claim 4, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 2 by Tera in view of Tanaka and Kova.
In regards to claim 5, Tera fails to teach the image reception method according to claim 3, wherein the reconstructing the still image frame includes reconstructing a still image frame by allocating, for each of the plurality of still image frames, at the corresponding position, the decoded block generated by decoding the encoded block of one said still image frame, the encoded block being received in the encoded block reception period corresponding to the one still image frame, and for the portion in which the decoded block has not been allocated, by allocating, at the corresponding position, a decoded block at a position corresponding to the portion, among decoded blocks generated by decoding encoded blocks of received past still image frames for each of the past still image frames ranging from a still image frame one-frame prior to the one still image frame to a still image frame a predetermined number of frames prior to the one still image frame, prioritizing a decoded block of a still image frame temporally closer to the one still image frame.
In a similar endeavor Tanaka teaches wherein the reconstructing the still image frame includes reconstructing a still image frame by allocating, for each of the plurality of still image frames, at the corresponding position, the decoded block generated by decoding the encoded block of one said still image frame, the encoded block being received in the encoded block reception period corresponding to the one still image frame (See ¶0071-0072 wherein coded picture data may be received within a given period of time, which is predicted/estimated according to the reception time of previous pictures), and for the portion in which the decoded block has not been allocated, by allocating, at the corresponding position, a decoded block at a position corresponding to the portion, among decoded blocks generated by decoding encoded blocks of received past still image frames for each of the past still image frames ranging from a still image frame one-frame prior to the one still image frame to a still image frame a predetermined number of frames prior to the one still image frame, prioritizing a decoded block of a still image frame temporally closer to the one still image frame (See ¶0027-0030).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Tanaka into Tera because it allows for such errors of time intervals to be fixed as described in ¶0022-0023, specifically in that accuracy may thus be improved in the prediction of time interval for receiving image data.
In regards to claim 6, Tera fails to teach the image reception method according to claim 3, wherein (1) when the encoded block, first transmitted, of the one still image frame is received within the encoded block reception period, a next frame start time is set to a time corresponding to a time at which one frame time has elapsed from a reception time of the encoded block of the one still image frame first received within the encoded block reception period, and (2) when the encoded block, first transmitted, of the one still image frame is not received and the transmitted encoded block of the one still image frame other than the first transmitted encoded block of the one still image frame is received within the encoded block reception period, a next frame start time is set to a time at which a certain time has elapsed from a time at which the encoded block of the one still image frame is first received, the certain time being a difference between the one frame time and an expected time for receiving encoded blocks ranging from the first transmitted encoded block of the one still image frame to an encoded block earliest in a transmission order among the encoded blocks of the one still image frame, the encoded blocks being received within the encoded block reception period.
In a similar endeavor Tanaka teaches wherein (1) when the encoded block, first transmitted, of the one still image frame is received within the encoded block reception period, a next frame start time is set to a time corresponding to a time at which one frame time has elapsed from a reception time of the encoded block of the one still image frame first received within the encoded block reception period (See ¶0051-0052), and (2) when the encoded block, first transmitted, of the one still image frame is not received and the transmitted encoded block of the one still image frame other than the first transmitted encoded block of the one still image frame is received within the encoded block reception period, a next frame start time is set to a time at which a certain time has elapsed from a time at which the encoded block of the one still image frame is first received, the certain time being a difference between the one frame time and an expected time for receiving encoded blocks ranging from the first transmitted encoded block of the one still image frame to an encoded block earliest in a transmission order among the encoded blocks of the one still image frame, the encoded blocks being received within the encoded block reception period (See ¶0274-0279).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Tanaka into Tera because it allows for such errors of time intervals to be fixed as described in ¶0022-0023, specifically in that accuracy may thus be improved in the prediction of time interval for receiving image data.
In regards to claim 11, Tera fails to teach the image reception method according to claim 3, wherein the margin time is a difference between the one frame time and a sum of the expected time for receiving all encoded blocks of the one frame and the drawing time of the one frame in a case that the all blocks of the one frame are decoded.
In a similar endeavor Tanaka teaches wherein the margin time is a difference between the one frame time and a sum of the expected time for receiving all encoded blocks of the one frame and the drawing time of the one frame in a case that the all blocks of the one frame are decoded (See ¶0071-0072 in view of 0325-0328 and 0800 wherein the actual period of time of reception of an image is the estimated historical time as described above plus [or minus] the difference prediction error, which may also be described as a prescribed margin [to the mean value of the differences between those images received in the past]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Tanaka into Tera because it allows for such errors of time intervals to be fixed as described in ¶0022-0023, specifically in that accuracy may thus be improved in the prediction of time interval for receiving image data.
In regards to claim 12, Tera fails to teach the image reception method according to claim 6, wherein the expected time for receiving all encoded blocks of the one frame, the expected time for receiving encoded blocks ranging from the first transmitted encoded block of the one still image frame to the earliest encoded block in the transmission order among the encoded blocks of the one still image frame, the encoded blocks being received within the encoded block reception period, and/or the drawing time is determined based on a corresponding measured value, and is updated at a predetermined timing during reception of the video.
In a similar endeavor Tanaka teaches wherein the expected time for receiving all encoded blocks of the one frame, the expected time for receiving encoded blocks ranging from the first transmitted encoded block of the one still image frame to the earliest encoded block in the transmission order among the encoded blocks of the one still image frame, the encoded blocks being received within the encoded block reception period, and/or the drawing time is determined based on a corresponding measured value, and is updated at a predetermined timing during reception of the video (See for example ¶0027 and 0044 with regards to it being based on a history of reception time of previous pictures and has a have based on that).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Tanaka into Tera because it allows for such errors of time intervals to be fixed as described in ¶0022-0023, specifically in that accuracy may thus be improved in the prediction of time interval for receiving image data.
In regards to claim 13, Tera teaches the image reception method according to claim 12, wherein a value of the expected time for receiving all encoded blocks of the one frame, the expected time for receiving encoded blocks ranging from the first transmitted encoded block of the one still image frame to the earliest encoded block in the transmission order among the encoded blocks of the one still image frame, the encoded blocks being received within the encoded block reception period, and/or the drawing time to be determined based on a corresponding measured value, is updated at a predetermined timing during reception of the video.
In a similar endeavor Tanaka teaches wherein a value of the expected time for receiving all encoded blocks of the one frame, the expected time for receiving encoded blocks ranging from the first transmitted encoded block of the one still image frame to the earliest encoded block in the transmission order among the encoded blocks of the one still image frame, the encoded blocks being received within the encoded block reception period, and/or the drawing time to be determined based on a corresponding measured value, is updated at a predetermined timing during reception of the video (See for example ¶0027 and 0044 with regards to it being based on a history of reception time of previous pictures and has a have based on that).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Tanaka into Tera because it allows for such errors of time intervals to be fixed as described in ¶0022-0023, specifically in that accuracy may thus be improved in the prediction of time interval for receiving image data.
In regards to claim 14, Tera teaches an image transmission method comprising:
dividing each of a plurality of still image frames of a video including the plurality of still image frames into a plurality of blocks (See ¶0113 and 0246);
encoding the plurality of blocks individually on a per block basis (See ¶0113 and 0246); and
transmitting an encoded block obtained by encoding a block of the plurality of blocks by a connectionless communication scheme (See ¶0517-0520 in view of FIG. 71).
In regards to claim 16, Tera teaches a non-transit computer-readable recording medium the program having instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processor to perform the video communication method according to claim 1 (See ¶0514 in view of the rejection of claim 1).
In regards to claim 17, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Tera in view of Tanaka, wherein the processing system may be seen in ¶0432.
In regards to claim 19, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Tera in view of Tanaka, wherein the processing system may be seen in ¶0432.
In regards to claim 21, Tera fails to teach the image reception device according to claim 19, wherein the frame reconstruction unit reconstructs a still image frame by allocating, for each of the plurality of still image frames, at the corresponding position, the decoded block generated by decoding the encoded block of one said still image frame, the encoded block being received in the encoded block reception period corresponding to the one still image frame, and for the portion in which the decoded block has not been allocated, by allocating, at the corresponding position, a decoded block at a position corresponding to the portion, among decoded blocks generated by decoding encoded blocks of received past still image frames for each of the past still image frames ranging from a still image frame one-frame prior to the one still image frame to a still image frame a predetermined number of frames prior to the one still image frame, prioritizing a decoded block of a still image frame temporally closer to the one still image frame.
In a similar endeavor Tanaka teaches wherein the frame reconstruction unit reconstructs a still image frame by allocating, for each of the plurality of still image frames, at the corresponding position, the decoded block generated by decoding the encoded block of one said still image frame, the encoded block being received in the encoded block reception period corresponding to the one still image frame (See ¶0071-0072 wherein coded picture data may be received within a given period of time, which is predicted/estimated according to the reception time of previous pictures), and for the portion in which the decoded block has not been allocated, by allocating, at the corresponding position, a decoded block at a position corresponding to the portion, among decoded blocks generated by decoding encoded blocks of received past still image frames for each of the past still image frames ranging from a still image frame one-frame prior to the one still image frame to a still image frame a predetermined number of frames prior to the one still image frame, prioritizing a decoded block of a still image frame temporally closer to the one still image frame (See ¶0027-0030).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Tanaka into Tera because it allows for such errors of time intervals to be fixed as described in ¶0022-0023, specifically in that accuracy may thus be improved in the prediction of time interval for receiving image data.
In regards to claim 22, Tera fails to teach the image reception device according to claim 19, further comprising: a frame start time setting unit configured to perform setting such that, (1) when the encoded block, first transmitted, of the one still image frame is received within the encoded block reception period, a next frame start time is set to a time corresponding to a time at which one frame time has elapsed from a reception time of the encoded block of the one still image frame first received within the encoded block reception period (See ¶0051-0052), and (2) when the encoded block, first transmitted, of the one still image frame is not received and the transmitted encoded block of the one still image frame other than the first transmitted encoded block of the one still image frame is received within the encoded block reception period, a next frame start time is set to a time at which a certain time has elapsed from a time at which the encoded block of the one still image frame is first received, the certain time being a difference between the one frame time and an expected time for receiving encoded blocks ranging from the first transmitted encoded block of the one still image frame to an encoded block earliest in a transmission order among the encoded blocks of the one still image frame, the encoded blocks being received within the encoded block reception period.
In a similar endeavor Tanaka teaches further comprising: a frame start time setting unit configured to perform setting such that, (1) when the encoded block, first transmitted, of the one still image frame is received within the encoded block reception period, a next frame start time is set to a time corresponding to a time at which one frame time has elapsed from a reception time of the encoded block of the one still image frame first received within the encoded block reception period, and (2) when the encoded block, first transmitted, of the one still image frame is not received and the transmitted encoded block of the one still image frame other than the first transmitted encoded block of the one still image frame is received within the encoded block reception period, a next frame start time is set to a time at which a certain time has elapsed from a time at which the encoded block of the one still image frame is first received, the certain time being a difference between the one frame time and an expected time for receiving encoded blocks ranging from the first transmitted encoded block of the one still image frame to an encoded block earliest in a transmission order among the encoded blocks of the one still image frame, the encoded blocks being received within the encoded block reception period (See ¶0274-0279).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Tanaka into Tera because it allows for such errors of time intervals to be fixed as described in ¶0022-0023, specifically in that accuracy may thus be improved in the prediction of time interval for receiving image data.
In regards to claim 26, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Tera in view of Tanaka.
In regards to claim 27, Tera teaches a remote control device comprising: the image transmission device according to claim 26 (See the rejection of claim 26 in view of claim 1); and an imaging device configured to supply a video to the image transmission device (See ¶0527-0529).
In regards to claim 28, Tera teaches the remote control device according to claim 27, wherein the remote control device is a mobile object (See ¶0518-0521).
In regards to claim 30, Tera teaches a non-transit computer-readable recording medium storing the program having instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processor to perform the video communication method according to claim 3 (See ¶0514 in view of the rejection of claim 1).
Claim(s) 2, 10, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada et al. (“Tera”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2018/0184123) in view of Tanaka et al. (“Tanaka”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2010/0246673) and Kovacevic et al. (“Kova”) (U.S. Patent No. 6,301,222).
In regards to claim 2, Tera teaches the video communication method according to claim 1, wherein the reconstructing the still image frame includes, for each of the plurality of still image frames, reconstructing a still image frame by allocating, at the corresponding position, the decoded block generated by decoding the encoded block of one said still image frame (See ¶0480).
Tera, however, fails to teach the encoded block being received in the encoded block reception period corresponding to the one still image frame (See ¶0071-0072 in view of 0325-0328 and 0800).
In a similar endeavor Tanaka teaches Tera, however, fails to teach the encoded block being received in the encoded block reception period corresponding to the one still image frame (See ¶0071-0072 in view of 0325-0328 and 0800).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Tanaka into Tera because it allows for such errors of time intervals to be fixed as described in ¶0022-0023, specifically in that accuracy may thus be improved in the prediction of time interval for receiving image data.
In a similar endeavor Kova teaches allocating an image equivalent to a no-image signal to a portion in which the decoded block has not been allocated (See Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Kova into Tera because it allows for a graceful degradation in reconstructed signal quality in the presence of packet loss during transmission.
In regards to claim 10, Tera fails to teach the image reception method according to claim 3, wherein an encoding scheme for the video is a Motion JPEG-based scheme.
In a similar endeavor Kova teaches wherein an encoding scheme for the video is a Motion JPEG-based scheme (See col. 8, li. 51-67).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Kova into Tera because it allows for a well-known compression standard to be used as seen in col. 8, li. 51-67.
In regards to claim 18, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 2 by Tera in view of Tanaka and Kova.
In regards to claim 20, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 2 by Tera in view of Tanaka and Kova.
Claim(s) 7 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada et al. (“Tera”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2018/0184123) in view of Tanaka et al. (“Tanaka”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2010/0246673) and Eom (U.S. PG Publication No. 2006/0087687).
In regards to claim 7, Tera fails to teach the image reception method according to claim 3, wherein a next frame start time is set to a time at which one frame time has elapsed from the current frame start time when all of the encoded blocks of the one still image frame are not received within the encoded block reception period.
In a similar endeavor Eom teaches wherein a next frame start time is set to a time at which one frame time has elapsed from the current frame start time when all of the encoded blocks of the one still image frame are not received within the encoded block reception period (See ¶0038).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Eom into Tera because it allows for proper continual transmission of image data as seen in at least ¶0038.
In regards to claim 23, Tera fails to teach the image reception device according to claim 19, wherein the frame start time setting unit sets a next frame start time to a time at which one frame time has elapsed from the current frame start time when all of the encoded blocks of the one still image frame are not received within the encoded block reception period.
In a similar endeavor Eom teaches wherein the frame start time setting unit sets a next frame start time to a time at which one frame time has elapsed from the current frame start time when all of the encoded blocks of the one still image frame are not received within the encoded block reception period (See ¶0038).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Eom into Tera because it allows for proper continual transmission of image data as seen in at least ¶0038.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada et al. (“Tera”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2018/0184123) in view of Tanaka et al. (“Tanaka”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2010/0246673) and Lin et al. (“Lin”) (U.S. Patent No. 5,214,506).
In regards to claim 8, Tera fails to teach the image reception method according to claim 3, wherein the plurality of encoded blocks are transmitted in an order obtained by rearranging a position order of the blocks of the still image frame.
In a similar endeavor Lin teaches wherein the plurality of encoded blocks are transmitted in an order obtained by rearranging a position order of the blocks of the still image frame (See col. 2, li. 45 – col. 3, li. 13).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Lin into Tera because it allows for the possibility of higher activity regions to be more likely to be quantized with smaller step sizes without otherwise resulting in a noticeable image degradation, thus leading to higher coding efficiency as described in at least col. 2, li. 45 – 61.
In regards to claim 9, Tera fails to teach the image reception method according to claim 8, wherein the plurality of encoded blocks are transmitted in an order obtained by randomly rearranging the position order of the blocks of the still image frame.
In a similar endeavor Lin teaches wherein the plurality of encoded blocks are transmitted in an order obtained by randomly rearranging the position order of the blocks of the still image frame (See col. 2, li. 45 – col. 3, li. 13).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Lin into Tera because it allows for the possibility of higher activity regions to be more likely to be quantized with smaller step sizes without otherwise resulting in a noticeable image degradation, thus leading to higher coding efficiency as described in at least col. 2, li. 45 – 61.
In regards to claim 24, Tera fails to teach the image reception device according to claim 19, wherein the plurality of encoded blocks are transmitted in an order obtained by rearranging a position order of the blocks of the still image frame.
In a similar endeavor Lin teaches wherein the plurality of encoded blocks are transmitted in an order obtained by rearranging a position order of the blocks of the still image frame (See col. 2, li. 45 – col. 3, li. 13).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Lin into Tera because it allows for the possibility of higher activity regions to be more likely to be quantized with smaller step sizes without otherwise resulting in a noticeable image degradation, thus leading to higher coding efficiency as described in at least col. 2, li. 45 – 61.
In regards to claim 25, Tera fails to teach the image reception device according to claim 24, wherein the plurality of encoded blocks are transmitted in an order obtained by randomly rearranging the position order of the blocks of the still image frame.
In a similar endeavor Lin teaches wherein the plurality of encoded blocks are transmitted in an order obtained by randomly rearranging the position order of the blocks of the still image frame (See col. 2, li. 45 – col. 3, li. 13).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Lin into Tera because it allows for the possibility of higher activity regions to be more likely to be quantized with smaller step sizes without otherwise resulting in a noticeable image degradation, thus leading to higher coding efficiency as described in at least col. 2, li. 45 – 61.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada et al. (“Tera”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2018/0184123) in view of Tanaka et al. (“Tanaka”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2010/0246673) and Wade (U.S. PG Publication No. 2017/0353731).
In regards to claim 29, Tera teaches the remote control device according to claim 28, wherein the mobile object is an unmanned mobile object.
In a similar endeavor Wade teaches wherein the mobile object is an unmanned mobile object (See ¶0003, 0069, 0097 and 0103).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Wade into Tera because it allows for the use of UAVs, amongst many other devices such as seen in ¶0097, to provide for image streams and image stream generating devices, thus allowing for a wide variety of such devices.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDEMIO NAVAS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, ~ 9 AM -6 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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
EDEMIO NAVAS JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2483
/EDEMIO NAVAS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights