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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 6, filed 1/12/2026, with respect to the Objections of claims 1-2 and 5-6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objections of claims 1-2 and 5-6 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 7-8, filed 1/12/2026, with respect to the Rejections of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Rejections of claims 1-16 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 8-11, filed 1/12/2026, with respect to the rejection of amended claim(s) 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 10-11 of Remarks, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
542
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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., “background picture data is not compressed” and “background picture data is only transmitted during the transmission of the first frame of image, and is not transmitted during subsequent image transmissions.”) 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).
Paragraph 0152 of Fitzgerald discloses: “The encoding of image data within the boundary could be performed in any suitable manner and could include retaining the image data for parts of the image within the boundary without change…For example if a boundary surrounds an object that is static, the image data within the entire boundary can simply be omitted from the compressed image data, and substituted with image data from a previous image.” Wherein static objects within the image frames are omitted from the image data being compressed and are substituted with image data from a previous image. Thus, in order for the image data to be available for future frames, the method discloses the output of a processed a first frame being compressed non-static image data and background image data, as well as the output of a processed subsequent frame being compressed non-static image data.
Paragraph 0156 of Fitzgerald discloses “The image can then be displayed in accordance with the boundary and the decoded image data. In particular, this is typically achieved by displaying images of areas of interest based on the decoded image data, with the location of the images being defined by the boundary, in effect recreating the original image. In this regard, masked portions of the original image falling outside of the boundary can simply be recreated, replaced, or not displayed, depending on the application.” Wherein the encoded non-static image data is decoded and displayed, with the non-encoded static image data being replaced, as is also disclosed by paragraph 0152 of Fitzgerald. The displaying of the decoded image data constitutes displaying the compressed image data along with the background regions.
Thus, Fitzgerald discloses the limitations “when the current frame is a first frame of image in continuous multiple frames of image in the continuous multiple frames of image, outputting the first image data after compression and background picture data corresponding to the background region to a display device, when the current frame is not the first frame of image in continuous multiple frames of image in the continuous multiple frames of image, outputting the first image data after compression to the display device, displaying display the multiple frames of image by the display device to complete a displaying of dynamic pictures.”
Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is maintained.
As per claim(s) 8, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 1 are analogous.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 11, filed 1/12/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 2 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 10-11 of Remarks, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
455
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As is disclosed in arguments above, and in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) disclosed below, Fitzgerald discloses the limitations “compressing image data of the region of interest to obtain first image data after compression; and when the current frame is a first frame of image in continuous multiple frames of image in the continuous multiple frames of image, outputting the first image data after compression and background picture data corresponding to the background region to a display device”.
However, Fitzgerald fails to disclose the claim 2 limitations “wherein the step of compressing the image data of the region of interest to obtain the first image data after compression comprises: acquiring a target compression ratio; compressing the image data of the region of interest according to the target compression ratio to obtain the first image data after compression”. More specifically, Fitzgerald fails to disclose the acquiring and use of a target compression ratio for the compression of the image data of the region of interest.
In paragraph 0037 of Croxford discloses “At block 220, a first portion of the data is processed. The first portion of the data represents the at least one target region. The first portion of the data is processed using a first processing scheme…In some examples, the first processing scheme involves compressing according to a first compression ratio,” wherein image data in a region of interest is compressed according to a compression ratio.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement the compression of image data according to a compression ratio taught by Croxford for the encoding of the boundary regions containing non-static objects disclosed by Fitzgerald.
Therefore, Fitzgerald in view of Croxford discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein the step of compressing the image data of the region of interest to obtain the first image data after compression comprises: acquiring a target compression ratio; compressing the image data of the region of interest according to the target compression ratio to obtain the first image data after compression”.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
As per claim(s) 11, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 2 are analogous.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“…image acquisition module” in claims 8.
“…detection module” in claims 8.
“…compression module” in claims 8.
“…output module” in claims 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1-17 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “when the current frame is a first frame of image in continuous multiple frames of image in the continuous multiple frames of image” and “when the current frame is not the first frame of image in continuous multiple frames of image in the continuous multiple frames of image.” The limitations are indefinite as it is unclear whether the continuous multiple frames consist of a single set of continuous images or a plurality of them. For the purposes of examination, the limitations are interpreted as “when the current frame is a first frame of image in continuous multiple frames of image” and “when the current frame is not the first frame of image in continuous multiple frames of image.”
Regarding claim 2-7 and 10-17, it/they is/are rejected under 112b for inheriting and failing to cure the deficiencies of the parent claim 1.
As per claim(s) 8, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 1 are analogous.
Regarding claim 9, it/they is/are rejected under 112b for inheriting and failing to cure the deficiencies of the parent claim 8.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the target compression ratio". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as “a target compression ratio.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 6-10, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fitzgerald et al. (US2020280739A1) hereinafter referenced as Fitzgerald.
Regarding claim 1, Fitzgerald discloses: An image processing method of a Virtual Reality device (Fitzgerald: 0095: “The image data typically represents one or more images forming part of a sequence of images, which in one example is a digital content stream displayed remotely using the HMD…it will be appreciated that some of the techniques described herein are also applicable to virtual reality and/or telepresence applications, and the term digital reality is therefore not intended to be limiting. Specifically the term digital reality is intended to encompass at least a mixed real and virtual reality application, commonly referred to as mixed or merged reality, including arrangements that merely overlay virtual objects into a user's field-of-view or provides virtual features that are strongly intertwined with, and appear to co-exist with the real-world features, but can also be extended to augmented and pure virtual reality applications.”), comprising the following steps: acquiring a current frame of image, wherein the current frame is a frame of image in continuous multiple frames of image (Fitzgerald: 0020: “ In one embodiment the image forms part of a sequence of images, and wherein the method includes using respective display data to compress and decompress at least one of: image data for a sub-sequence of one or more images; and, image data for each image.”);
detecting a moving object in the current frame of image to obtain a region of interest (Fitzgerald: 0151: “the encoder processing devices operate to generate one or more boundaries based on the content, and then differentially compress the image data based on the boundaries. The boundaries can be determined in any appropriate manner and could be estimated based on a previous boundary, calculated based on a location and extent of an area of interest, identified objects, or the like.”) and a background region (Fitzgerald: 00132: “the appearance of individual objects within an image may be unchanged between successive images, with only the position varying based on movement of the display device. Accordingly, in this example, it is possible to simply replace portions of an image with part of previous image”), wherein the region of interest includes the moving object (Fitzgerald: 0152: “For example if a boundary surrounds an object that is static, the image data within the entire boundary can simply be omitted from the compressed image data, and substituted with image data from a previous image.”; Wherein a static image is treated as a background region);
compressing image data of the region of interest to obtain first image data after compression (Fitzgerald: 0152: “The encoding of image data within the boundary could be performed in any suitable manner and could include retaining the image data for parts of the image within the boundary without change, but more typically includes some form of lossy or lossless compression, such as code substitution, JPEG compression, bit encoding, or the like.”; Wherein the non-static object regions are encoded/compressed.); and
when the current frame is a first frame of image in continuous multiple frames of image in the continuous multiple frames of image, outputting the first image data after compression and background picture data corresponding to the background region to a display device, when the current frame is not the first frame of image in continuous multiple frames of image in the continuous multiple frames of image, outputting the first image data after compression to the display device, displaying the multiple frames of image by the display device to complete a displaying of dynamic pictures (Claim limitations are interpreted according to interpretation disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)) (Fitzgerald: 0152: “The encoding of image data within the boundary could be performed in any suitable manner and could include retaining the image data for parts of the image within the boundary without change, but more typically includes some form of lossy or lossless compression, such as code substitution, JPEG compression, bit encoding, or the like. A further variation is for the content of a boundary to be replaced by content from a previous image based on redundancy between images. For example if a boundary surrounds an object that is static, the image data within the entire boundary can simply be omitted from the compressed image data, and substituted with image data from a previous image.”;
0156: “The image can then be displayed in accordance with the boundary and the decoded image data. In particular, this is typically achieved by displaying images of areas of interest based on the decoded image data, with the location of the images being defined by the boundary, in effect recreating the original image. In this regard, masked portions of the original image falling outside of the boundary can simply be recreated, replaced, or not displayed, depending on the application.”;
Wherein the displaying of the decoded image data constitutes displaying the compressed image boundaries along with the background regions. Also, wherein the substitution of redundant image data, such as static objects, with image data from a previous image constitutes the first frame of image outputting the first image data after compression and background picture data, and the subsequent images outputting the first image data after compression.).
Regarding claim 6, Fitzgerald discloses: The method according to claim 1, wherein the step of compressing the image data of the region of interest to obtain the first image data after compression comprises: extracting a plurality of pixel points in the region of interest according to a preset extraction rule; and determining image data of the plurality of pixel points as the first image data after compression (Fitzgerald: 0152: “The encoding of image data within the boundary could be performed in any suitable manner and could include retaining the image data for parts of the image within the boundary without change, but more typically includes some form of lossy or lossless compression, such as code substitution, JPEG compression, bit encoding, or the like.”; Wherein the encoding of the pixel data within the boundaries constitutes the extraction and compression of a plurality of pixel points within the region of interest.).
Regarding claim 7, Fitzgerald discloses: The method according to claim 1, wherein after outputting the first image data after compression and background picture data corresponding to the background region to a display device to and displaying the current frame of image by the display device, the method further comprises: acquiring a next frame of image (Fitzgerald: 0145-0146: “ An example of a process for encoding images using content of the digital reality stream will now be described with reference to FIG. 1C. In this example, at step 120 the encoder processing devices determine content data. The content data can relate to any aspect of the content, and could include pixel array content, image content, content of different parts of the image, an opacity of different parts of the image, areas of interest within the image, locations of interest within the image, one or more cues associated with the image, such as audible or contextual cues, or one or more display objects in an image”;
0156: “The image can then be displayed in accordance with the boundary and the decoded image data.…in mixed or augmented reality applications, masked parts of the image are not displayed to allow the user's external environment to be viewed. Specifically, these are either omitted, allowing the user to view the environment directly, or are replaced by captured images of the environment.”; Wherein the digital reality stream consists of a series of frames to be displayed, wherein previous frames/image data may be used for displaying current image data.);
detecting the moving object in the next frame of image to obtain a region of interest (Fitzgerald: 0151: “the encoder processing devices operate to generate one or more boundaries based on the content, and then differentially compress the image data based on the boundaries. The boundaries can be determined in any appropriate manner and could be estimated based on a previous boundary, calculated based on a location and extent of an area of interest, identified objects, or the like.”) and a background region, wherein the background region of the next frame of image is consistent with the background region of the current frame of image (Fitzgerald: 0132: “the appearance of individual objects within an image may be unchanged between successive images, with only the position varying based on movement of the display device. Accordingly, in this example, it is possible to simply replace portions of an image with part of previous image”), and the moving object in the region of interest of the next frame of image changes (Fitzgerald: 0152: “For example if a boundary surrounds an object that is static, the image data within the entire boundary can simply be omitted from the compressed image data, and substituted with image data from a previous image.”; Wherein only boundaries with non-static objects, objects that are different between frames, are selected/compressed.);
compressing image data of the region of interest of the next frame of image to obtain second image data after compressed (Fitzgerald: 0152: “The encoding of image data within the boundary could be performed in any suitable manner and could include retaining the image data for parts of the image within the boundary without change, but more typically includes some form of lossy or lossless compression, such as code substitution, JPEG compression, bit encoding, or the like.”);
and outputting the second image data after compressed to the display device to display the next frame of image by the display device (Fitzgerald: 0156: “The image can then be displayed in accordance with the boundary and the decoded image data. In particular, this is typically achieved by displaying images of areas of interest based on the decoded image data, with the location of the images being defined by the boundary, in effect recreating the original image. In this regard, masked portions of the original image falling outside of the boundary can simply be recreated, replaced, or not displayed, depending on the application.”; 0170: “the decompression process typically determines a boundary extent and then decodes compressed image data using the boundary extent, for example by in-filling of the image in regions outside of the boundaries”).
As per claim(s) 8, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 1 are analogous. In addition, Figure 3 and paragraphs 0246-0247 and 0260 of Fitzgerald disclose encoder 320, consisting of input buffer 321, processing device 322, and transceiver 324, and display device 340. Wherein encoder 320 corresponds to the image acquisition, detection, compression, and output modules, and display device 340 corresponds to the display module.
As per claim(s) 9, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 8 are analogous.
As per claim(s) 10, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 1 are analogous. In addition, paragraph 0243 of Fitzgerald disclose: A computer-readable storage medium having computer instructions stored thereon, wherein the computer instructions are executed by a processor.
As per claim(s) 15, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 6 are analogous. In addition, paragraph 0243 of Fitzgerald discloses: A computer-readable storage medium having computer instructions stored thereon, wherein the computer instructions are executed by a processor.
As per claim(s) 16, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 7 are analogous. In addition, paragraph 0243 of Fitzgerald disclose: A computer-readable storage medium having computer instructions stored thereon, wherein the computer instructions are executed by a processor.
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) 2-3, 5, 11-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzgerald, and further in view of Croxford et al. (US2020034617A1) hereinafter referenced as Croxford.
Regarding claim 2, Fitzgerald discloses: The method according to claim 1.
Fitzgerald does not disclose expressly: wherein the step of compressing the image data of the region of interest to obtain the first image data after compression comprises: acquiring a target compression ratio; compressing the image data of the region of interest according to the target compression ratio to obtain the first image data after compression.
Croxford discloses: the compression of a region of interest within an image according to a compression ratio in order to obtain a compressed region of interest (Croxford: 0037: “At block 220, a first portion of the data is processed. The first portion of the data represents the at least one target region. The first portion of the data is processed using a first processing scheme…In some examples, the first processing scheme involves compressing according to a first compression ratio.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to compress the boundary regions containing non-static objects disclosed by Fitzgerald according to the compression ratio taught by Croxford. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “the first compression ratio (as a ratio between uncompressed size and compressed size) may be 3:2, and the second compression ratio may be 3:1…By processing the first and second portions of the received data using different compression ratios, an amount of data used to represent the image may be reduced without reducing a perceived visual level of quality.” (Croxford: 0042 & 0045; Wherein the light compression of the target regions reduces data while minimizing the loss in quality.). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fitzgerald with Croxford to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Fitzgerald in view of Croxford discloses: The method according to claim 2, wherein the step of acquiring the target compression ratio comprises: determining the target compression ratio according to a preset compression ratio (Croxford: 0042: “In examples where the first processing scheme involves compressing according to a first compression ratio...the first compression ratio (as a ratio between uncompressed size and compressed size) may be 3:2”).
Regarding claim 5, Fitzgerald in view of Croxford discloses: The method according to claim 2, wherein the target compression ratio comprises a transverse compression ratio and a longitudinal compression ratio, and the step of compressing the image data of the region of interest according to the target compression ratio to obtain the first image data after compression comprises: compressing the image data of the region of interest according to the transverse compression ratio and the longitudinal compression ratio to obtain the first image data after compression (Croxford: 0042-0043: “In examples where the first processing scheme involves compressing according to a first compression ratio...the first compression ratio (as a ratio between uncompressed size and compressed size) may be 3:2… the first processing scheme may involve discarding a first number of LSBs…a smaller number of bits may be discarded for the at least one target region, which may be for display at a relatively high level of quality”; Wherein the compression of the target region according to the compression ratio implies the compression according to transverse and longitudinal axes, and thus the disclosure of transverse and longitudinal compression ratios.).
As per claim(s) 11, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 2 are analogous. In addition, paragraph 0243 of Fitzgerald disclose: A computer-readable storage medium having computer instructions stored thereon, wherein the computer instructions are executed by a processor.
As per claim(s) 12, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 3 are analogous. In addition, paragraph 0243 of Fitzgerald disclose: A computer-readable storage medium having computer instructions stored thereon, wherein the computer instructions are executed by a processor.
As per claim(s) 14, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 5 are analogous. In addition, paragraph 0243 of Fitzgerald disclose: A computer-readable storage medium having computer instructions stored thereon, wherein the computer instructions are executed by a processor.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzgerald in view of Croxford, and further in view of Khanna et al. (Perceptual Depth Preserving Saliency based Image Compression) hereinafter referenced as Khanna.
Regarding claim 4, Fitzgerald in view of Croxford discloses: The method according to claim 2.
Fitzgerald in view of Croxford does not disclose expressly: wherein the step of acquiring the target compression ratio comprises: determining the target compression ratio according to a moving speed of the moving object.
Khanna discloses: the compression of regions in an image according saliency map computations, wherein the saliency of a region is calculated based on a moving speed of a moving object (Khanna: 1. Introduction: “we present an efficient and novel way to preserve perceptual depth information in still images by computing saliency maps. This is done on the basis of frequency information. Then we use this information to develop a scheme for image compression. Here we are using focus/defocus cue to generate saliency map. The non blurred regions are more salient whether that region be in the foreground or background. For compression we have used the standard JPEG compression scheme. In this we are changing the quality value for different regions of the image on the basis of saliency values.”; Wherein blurred regions are indicative of object movement speed as shown by Figures 2(a) and 2(b).).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the method for the compression of the non-static boundary image data disclosed by Fitzgerald in view of Croxford with the compression method based on saliency mappings taught by Khanna. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “Results show that proposed scheme achieves the goal of compression without degrading visual quality and loss of depth information is minimized” (Khanna: 1. Introduction). Further, one skilled in the art could have substituted the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the substitution would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fitzgerald in view of Croxford with Khanna to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
As per claim(s) 13, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 4 are analogous. In addition, paragraph 0243 of Fitzgerald disclose: A computer-readable storage medium having computer instructions stored thereon, wherein the computer instructions are executed by a processor.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzgerald, and further in view of Rintaluoma et al. (US-20160073113-A1) hereinafter referenced as Rintaluoma.
Regarding claim 17, Fitzgerald discloses: The method according to claim 1.
Fitzgerald does not disclose expressly: wherein the step of acquiring the target compression ratio comprises: determining the target compression ratio according to a proportion of the region of interest, wherein the proportion of the region of interest is the proportion of the region of interest in the current frame of image, for the case where the current frame of image includes one region of interest, the proportion of the region of interest is the proportion of the region of interest in the current frame of image, for the case where the current frame of image includes multiple regions of interest, the proportion of the region of interest is the sum of the proportions of multiple regions of interest in the current frame of image.
Rintaluoma discloses: determining the target compression ratio according to a proportion of the region of interest, wherein the proportion of the region of interest is the proportion of the region of interest in the current frame of image, for the case where the current frame of image includes one region of interest, the proportion of the region of interest is the proportion of the region of interest in the current frame of image (Rintaluoma: 0037: “ROI reference 302 can include an offset and size, which is detailed in connection with reference numeral 306. Referencing again FIG. 2, ROI 116 begins at macroblock 2029 , 1 and spans an area of 7 macroblocks by 8 macroblocks. In this case, the offset portion of ROI reference 302 can be 9,1 and the size portion of ROI reference 302 can be 7,8.”
0039: “Compression ratio 406 can be an estimation determined based upon a macroblock size of ROI's 116 in proportion to a total number of macro blocks in the set of macro blocks.”), for the case where the current frame of image includes multiple regions of interest, the proportion of the region of interest is the sum of the proportions of multiple regions of interest in the current frame of image (Rintaluoma: 0026: “Motion component 114 can be configured to identify a region of interest (ROI) 116 that corresponds to macroblocks in the set of macroblocks that are not substantially static…For a given frame included in frames 110 , multiple regions of interest 116 can identified. Thus, although for the sake of simplicity examples provided herein relate to a single ROI 116 , it is readily understood the disclosed subject matter is not so limited.”;
0039: “Compression ratio 406 can be an estimation determined based upon a macroblock size of ROI's 116 in proportion to a total number of macro blocks in the set of macro blocks.”; Wherein the compression ratio is based on the size of macroblock ROI’s in proportion to the total number of macroblocks.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the algorithms for segmenting and compressing ROIs based on macroblocks taught by Rintaluoma for the compression of the ROIs disclosed by Fitzgerald. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “In many domains such as video conferencing, streaming news broadcasts, remote desktop applications or other domains in which some portion of the video stream does not change substantially, significant savings in compression ratio can be realized over conventional schemes by not encoding skipped macroblock bits.” (Rintaluoma: 0032; Wherein the compression ratio based on ROIs allows for improved efficiency). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fitzgerald with Rintaluoma to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
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 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 ANTHONY J RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-5821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/ANTHONY J RODRIGUEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672