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 .
This is in response to Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks filed on 3/12/2026. Claims 1, 4, 11, 16, 19, and 26 have been amended. Claims 31-56 have been previously canceled. Claims 1-30 are present for examination.
The objections to claims 1 and 16 have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
The double patenting rejections of claims 1-3 and 16-18 have been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/12/2026 with respect to the 35 SUC 112(b) and 35 USC 102 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejections:
Applicant submits: “claims 4, 11, 19, and 26 have been amended to clarify various aspects of the claimed invention, rendering the foregoing rejection of claims 4-15 and 19-30 moot.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Amended claim 4 recites, “wherein the compression method modified to automatically associated the unused pixels with certain values to optimize compression of the texture comprises a compression method modified to allow the unused pixels to match to any pixel in a previously encoded pattern of pixels.” As stated in the non-final rejection issued on 11/12/2025, it is also not clear whether the “any pixel in a previously encoded pattern of pixels” are any pixel of the texture to be compressed or some previous textures already compressed or encoded. (See non-final rejection issued on 11/12/2025, p. 6, last para. – p. 7, 1st para.) Therefore, claim 4 is still indefinite. In addition, the amendments to claims 4 and 19 have raised new issued regarding 35 USC 112(b). Details can be found in the corresponding sections below.
Amended claim 11 recites, “modifying the compression method to assume a difference when encoding the unused pixels is zero”. Although the amendment resolved the antecedent basis issue, it is still not clear what is “a difference” because a difference requires comparing of at least two values and claim 11 only recites “a difference when encoding the unused pixels” without providing how the difference is calculated or determined. Therefore, claim 11 is still indefinite.
Regarding the 35 USC 102 rejections:
Applicant submits: “Touma describes ‘determining a region where a texture is partially mapped to a three dimensional (3D) surface and populating an unmapped portion of the determined region with compressible low frequency information, in a hierarchical manner, for each resolution of the texture.’” “However, Touma does not describe modifying a compression method to improve compression. Rather, at best, Touma appears to describe pre-processing a texture before applying an existing compression technique. For example, Touma at paragraph [0032] (reproduced below) explains that textures are converted into a form that is more suitable for compression before applying an existing compression technique”, and “see also id. at [0036] (describing pre-processing a texture so that it can ‘be efficiently and effectively compressed by image compression techniques (e.g. wavelet based compression techniques)’). Thus, Touma does not disclose using a modified compression method configured to automatically associate the unused pixels with certain values to optimize compression of the texture.” (See Remarks filed on 3/12/2026, p. 9, last para. – p. 10, 1st para., emphasis original.)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant seems to characterize Touma’s compression process to be having two methods, a pre-processing method and a compression method. However, the examiner has considered the Touma’s compression process of the texture as a whole to be a modified compression method, i.e., “populating the unmapped pixels with an average color value then compressing the texture by image compression techniques can correspond to a compression method modified to automatically associate (populate) the unused pixels (unmapped pixels) with certain values (an average color value) to optimize compression of the texture (efficiently and effectively compression of the texture)). (See non-final rejection issued on 11/12/2025, p. 9., 1st para.) The pre-processing alleged by Applicant is considered as a modifying step that modified the compression process (or method). Note claim 1 does not require a pre-processing step in a compression process not to be part of a compression method, Touma teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but introducing the pre-processing step into the compression method that can account for the unused nature of unused pixels for improving texture compression.
Applicant further recites the as-filed specification for distinguishing pre-processing a texture before applying a compression method and using a modified compression method. (See Remarks filed on 3/12/2026, p. 10, 2nd para.)
However, the examiner respectfully points out that MPEP 2111 states that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification. (See MPEP 2111.01(II).)
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the 35 USC 102 rejections have been maintained.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 16-18 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 31-33 and 46-48 of copending Application No. 18/748,759 (reference application).
18/425,525 claims
1
2
3
16
17
18
18/748,759 claims
31
32
33
46
47
48
18/425,525 claim 1
18/748,759 claim 31
A computer-implemented method of improving texture compression by modifying a compression method to account for an unused nature of unused pixels, the method comprising:
A computer-implemented method of improving texture compression by pre-processing unused pixels, the method comprising:
identifying unused pixels of a texture, wherein the unused pixels comprise pixels of the texture that are not used for rendering a three-dimensional model; and
identifying unused pixels of the texture, wherein the unused pixels comprise pixels of the texture that are not used for rendering a three-dimensional model;
compressing the texture using a modified compression method, wherein the modified compression method comprises a compression method modified to automatically associate the unused pixels with certain values to optimize compression of the texture.
identifying one or more colors for filling the unused pixels prior to compression based on one or more other pixels of the texture and/or a selected compression method; filling the unused pixels with the one or more identified colors to reduce contrast with adjacent pixels; and compressing the texture with the selected compression method, wherein the texture compressed includes the unused pixels filled with the one or more identified colors.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 31 of Application18/748,759 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 of the current application. For example, claim 31 of Application18/748,759 does not expressly recite a “modified compression method.” However, it recites “filling the unused pixels with the one or more identified colors to reduce contrast with adjacent pixels; and compressing the texture with the selected compression method, wherein the texture compressed includes the unused pixels filled with the one or more identified colors”, which can be considered as modifying the selected compression method by filling the unused pixels with identified colors, then compressing the texture with the selected method. Therefore, claim 31 of Application18/748,759 teaches a modified compression method compressing the texture.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-15 and 19-30 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.
Regarding claim 4, it recites “wherein the compression method modified to automatically associated the unused pixels with certain values to optimize compression of the texture comprises a compression method modified to allow the unused pixels to match to any pixel in a previously encoded pattern of pixels.” However, it is not clear whether the “any pixel in a previously encoded pattern of pixels” are any pixel of the texture to be compressed or some previous textures already compressed or encoded.
Claims 5-10 depend from claim 4 but fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 4.
Claim 19 recites similar limitations discussed above with respect to claim 4. Claims 20-25 depend from claim 19 but fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 19.
In addition, claim 5 recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein previously-encountered pattern compression method is a DEFLATE compression method.” Claim 4 as amended, does not recite “previously-encountered pattern compression method”.
Claim 20 recites similar limitations discussed above with respect to claim 5.
In addition, claim 6 recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein previously- encountered pattern compression method comprises a run-length coding method.” Claim 4 as amended, does not recite “previously-encountered pattern compression method”.
Claims 7-10 depends from claim 6 but fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 6.
Claim 21 recites similar limitations discussed above with respect to claim 6. Claims 21-25 depend from claim 21 but fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 21.
Regarding claim 11, it recites “modifying the compression method to assume a difference when encoding the unused pixels is zero”. It is not clear what is “the difference”. Claim 11 only recites “a difference when encoding the unused pixels” without providing how the difference is calculated or determined based on what values.
Claims 12-15 depend from claim 11 but fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 11. Claim 26 recites similar limitations discussed above with respect to claim 11. Claims 27-30 depend from claim 26 but fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 26.
Therefore, claims 4-15 and 19-30 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for being indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Publication No. 20110210960 A1 to Touma et al.
Regarding claim 1, Touma discloses A computer-implemented method of improving texture compression by modifying a compression method to account for an unused nature of unused pixels (Touma, Abstract, disclosing methods when a texture is partially mapped to the 3D model’s surface, leaving the rest unused, an unmapped region is padded with compressible low frequency information), the method comprising:
identifying unused pixels of a texture, wherein the unused pixels comprise pixels of the texture that are not used for rendering a three-dimensional model (Touma, para. [0026], disclosing texture and texture mask are provided as inputs to blurring engine and compressed texture is obtained as an output, texture mask may store for each pixel in texture whether the pixel is mapped or unmapped to a 3D surface, para. [0028], disclosing textures are partially mapped to a 3D surface, leaving a portion of a texture unused, para. [0033], disclosing determining unmapped region and mapped region by checking for each pixel in texture if the pixel is mapped to a 3D surface, FIG. 3, showing mapped region and unmapped region of a texture); and
compressing the texture using a modified compression method (Touma, para. [0026], disclosing texture and texture mask are provided as inputs to blurring engine and compressed texture is obtained as an output, texture mask may store for each pixel in texture whether the pixel is mapped or unmapped to a 3D surface), wherein the modified compression method comprises a compression method modified to automatically associate the unused pixels with certain values to optimize compression of the texture (Touma, para. [0032], disclosing converting texture into a form that is highly compressible by populating the unmapped portion of texture with highly compressible low frequency information, para. [0034], disclosing texture mask stores for each pixel in texture whether the pixel is mapped or unmapped to a 3D surface, para. [0035], disclosing a texture minification operation in which unmapped pixels of texture are populated with an average color value, para. [0036], disclosing texture can be efficiently and effectively compressed by image compression techniques, indicating populating the unmapped pixels with an average color value then compressing the texture by image compression techniques can correspond to a compression method modified to automatically associate (populate) the unused pixels (unmapped pixels) with certain values (an average color value) to optimize compression of the texture (efficiently and effectively compression of the texture)).
Regarding claim 16, it recites similar limitations of claim 1 but in a system form. The rationale of claim 1 rejection is applied to reject claim 16. In addition, Touma discloses one or more processors configured by computer readable instructions (see Touma, FIG. 7).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Touma in view of US Patent Publication No. 20200020150 A1 to Johansson et al.
Regarding claim 2, Touma discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the unused pixels of the texture are identified based on a mapping of the texture onto the three-dimensional model (Touma, para. [0033], disclosing determining unmapped region and mapped region by checking for each pixel in the texture if the pixel is mapped to a 3D surface, a checking operation may include checking texture coordinates of the texture, para. [0034], disclosing the texture mask stores for each pixel in the texture whether the pixel is mapped or unmapped to a 3D surface). However, Touma does not expressly disclose the mapping of the texture is UV mapping of the texture.
On the other hand, Johansson discloses UV mapping of the texture (Johansson, para. [0031], disclosing a projecting a 3D mesh onto 2D UV spaces to create a mapping, the pixels corresponding to the 3D rendering are then pulled from the texels of the UV space to populate the pixels in the 3D rendering, indicating a UV mapping of the texture onto the 3D mesh as the three-dimensional model).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Touma and Johansson. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide rendering, manifesting lessened artifacts, may appear to be less impacted by downsampling, and thus improve the experience for the viewer, as suggested by Johansson (see Johansson, Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Touma in view of Johansson discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein identifying the unused pixels of the texture based on a UV mapping of the texture onto the three-dimensional model comprises: identifying pixels of the texture that are mapped to the three-dimensional model based on the UV mapping of the texture onto the three-dimensional model (Johansson, para. [0031], disclosing a projecting a 3D mesh onto 2D UV spaces to create a mapping, the pixels corresponding to the 3D rendering are then pulled from the texels of the UV space to populate the pixels in the 3D rendering, Touma, para. [0033], disclosing determining unmapped region and mapped region by checking for each pixel in the texture if the pixel is mapped to a 3D surface, a checking operation may include checking texture coordinates of the texture, para. [0034], disclosing the texture mask stores for each pixel in the texture whether the pixel is mapped or unmapped to a 3D surface, indicating Touma in view of Johansson can create UV mapping of the texture onto the 3D model, and the pixels of the texture that are mapped to the 3D model are identified based on the mapping); and marking all remaining pixels of the texture as unused (Touma, para. [0034], disclosing the texture mask stores for each pixel in the texture whether the pixel is mapped or unmapped to a 3D surface, indicating all unmapped pixels as the remaining pixels of the texture are marked as unused in the texture mask). Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Touma and Johansson. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide rendering, manifesting lessened artifacts, may appear to be less impacted by downsampling, and thus improve the experience for the viewer, as suggested by Johansson (see Johansson, Abstract).
Regarding claim 17, it recites similar limitations of claim 2 but in a system form. The rationale of claim 2 rejection is applied to reject claim 17. In addition, Touma discloses one or more processors configured by computer readable instructions (see Touma, FIG. 7).
Regarding claim 18, it recites similar limitations of claim 3 but in a system form. The rationale of claim 3 rejection is applied to reject claim 18. In addition, Touma discloses one or more processors configured by computer readable instructions (see Touma, FIG. 7).
Claim(s) 4 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Touma in view of US Patent Publication No. 20210074030 A1 to Oh et al.
Regarding claim 4, Touma discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1. However, Touma does not expressly disclose the compression method modified to automatically associate the unused pixels with certain values to optimize compression of the texture comprises a compression method modified to allow the unused pixels to match to any pixel in a previously encoded pattern of pixels.
On the other hand, Oh discloses a compression method modified to allow the unused pixels to match to any pixel in a previously encoded pattern of pixels (Oh, para. [0036], disclosing a value of an unused area in each of a plurality of pictures may be replaced with a fill value, para. [0037], disclosing the fill value may be obtained by using a value of a used area in each of a plurality of pictures, para. [0043], disclosing in content compression operation, the converted picture P2 that an unused area is replaced with the fill value may be compressed by using one encoding scheme, and output compressed picture P3 according to the compression, indicating the fill value can correspond a value any pixel of a used area can correspond to pixels in a previously encoded pattern of pixels and the content compression operation can correspond to the a compression method modified to allow the unused pixels to match any pixel in a previously encoded pattern of pixels of a used area).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Touma and Oh. The suggestion/motivation would have been to mitigate performance degradation such as signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) that occurs during compression or increase compression efficiency, as suggested by Oh (see Oh, para. [0041]).
Regarding claim 19, it recites similar limitations of claim 4 but in a system form. The rationale of claim 4 rejection is applied to reject claim 19. In addition, Touma discloses one or more processors configured by computer readable instructions (see Touma, FIG. 7).
Claim(s) 5, 6, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Touma in view of Oh as applied to claims 4 and 19 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication No. 20230400980 A1 to Wang.
Regarding claim 5, Touma in view of Oh discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 4.
However, Touma or Oh does not expressly disclose wherein previously-encountered pattern compression method is a DEFLATE compression method.
On the other hand, Wang discloses wherein previously-encountered pattern compression method is a DEFLATE compression method (Wang, para. [0043], disclosing dictionary encoding such as DEFLATE Compression that replace regularities data with tokens and the tokenized value is placed in a table (dictionary)).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Touma in view of Oh with Wang. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide compressed data with small memory size, as suggested by Wang (see Wang, para. [0041]).
Regarding claim 6, Touma in view of Oh discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 4.
However, Touma or Oh does not expressly disclose wherein previously- encountered pattern compression method comprises a run-length coding method.
On the other hand, Wang discloses wherein previously- encountered pattern compression method comprises a run-length coding method (Wang, para. [0041], disclosing the compression algorithm can be run-length coding).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Touma in view of Oh with Wang. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide compressed data with small memory size, as suggested by Wang (see Wang, para. [0041]).
Regarding claim 20, it recites similar limitations of claim 5 but in a system form. The rationale of claim 5 rejection is applied to reject claim 20. In addition, Touma discloses one or more processors configured by computer readable instructions (see Touma, FIG. 7).
Regarding claim 21, it recites similar limitations of claim 6 but in a system form. The rationale of claim 6 rejection is applied to reject claim 21. In addition, Touma discloses one or more processors configured by computer readable instructions (see Touma, FIG. 7).
Claim(s) 7, 8, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Touma, Oh, and Wang as applied to claims 6 and 21 above, and further in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. JP3952116B2.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Touma, Oh, and Wang discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 6. However, Touma, Oh, or Wang does not expressly discloses wherein the run-length coding method is used to encode AC coefficients of a discrete cosine transforms, and wherein modifying the compression method comprises modifying the compression method to assume AC coefficients for unused pixels are zeros.
On the other hand, JP3952116B2 discloses the run-length coding method is used to encode AC coefficients of a discrete cosine transforms (JP3952116B2, Translation, para. [0003], disclosing DCT (discrete cosine transform) is performed on an input image, the DCT generates coefficient block including DC and AC coefficients subjected to two-dimensional Huffman coding (run-length Huffman coding), indicating the compression method can be a run-length coding method used to encode AC coefficients of a DCT), and wherein modifying the compression method comprises modifying the compression method to assume AC coefficients for pixels filled with one color are zeros (JP3952116B2, Translation, para. [0006], disclosing a block filled with one color and all AC coefficients are zero). Because the combination of Touma, Wang, and Oh discloses filling unused pixels with one color (Touma, para. [0035], disclosing a texture minification operation in which unmapped pixels of texture are populated with an average color value, Oh, para. [0036], disclosing a value of an unused area in each of a plurality of pictures may be replaced with a fill value), combining the combination of Touma, Wang, and Oh with JP3952116B2 will assume AC coefficients for unused pixels are zeros.
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine the combination of Touma, Oh, and Wang with JP3952116B2. The suggestion/motivation would have been to reduce the total number of bits, as suggested by JP3952116B2 (see JP3952116B2, para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Touma, Oh, Wang, and JP3952116B2 discloses computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the compression method is a JPEG method (JP3952116B2, para. [0011], disclosing providing image compression method improved by the JPEG baseline method). Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine the combination of Touma, Oh, and Wang with JP3952116B2. The suggestion/motivation would have been to reduce the total number of bits, as suggested by JP3952116B2 (see JP3952116B2, para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 22, it recites similar limitations of claim 7 but in a system form. The rationale of claim 7 rejection is applied to reject claim 22. In addition, Touma discloses one or more processors configured by computer readable instructions (see Touma, FIG. 7).
Regarding claim 23, it recites similar limitations of claim 8 but in a system form. The rationale of claim 8 rejection is applied to reject claim 23. In addition, Touma discloses one or more processors configured by computer readable instructions (see Touma, FIG. 7).
Claim(s) 9, 10, 24, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Touma, Oh, Wang, and JP3952116B2 as applied to claim(s) 7 and 22 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication No. 20230177734 A1 to Cohen-Tidhar et al.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Touma, Oh, Wang, and JP3952116B2 discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 7. However, Touma, Oh, Wang, or JP3952116B2 does not expressly disclose wherein the compression method is a JPEG XL method.
On the other hand, Cohen-Tidhar discloses the compression method is a JPEG XL method (Cohen-Tidhar, para. [0067], disclosing selecting an encoding technique that supports JPEG XL encoding and AVIF encoding).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine the combination of Touma, Oh, Wang, and JP3952116B2 with Cohen-Tidhar. The suggestion/motivation would have been to achieve the most efficient performance goals for each content type, as suggested by Cohen-Tidhar (see Cohen-Tidhar, para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Touma, Oh, Wang, and JP3952116B2 discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 7. However, Touma, Oh, Wang, or JP3952116B2 does not expressly disclose wherein the compression method is an AVIF method.
On the other hand, Cohen-Tidhar discloses the compression method is an AVIF method (Cohen-Tidhar, para. [0067], disclosing selecting an encoding technique that supports JPEG XL encoding and AVIF encoding).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine the combination of Touma, Oh, Wang, and JP3952116B2 with Cohen-Tidhar. The suggestion/motivation would have been to achieve the most efficient performance goals for each content type, as suggested by Cohen-Tidhar (see Cohen-Tidhar, para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 24, it recites similar limitations of claim 9 but in a system form. The rationale of claim 9 rejection is applied to reject claim 24. In addition, Touma discloses one or more processors configured by computer readable instructions (see Touma, FIG. 7).
Regarding claim 25, it recites similar limitations of claim 10 but in a system form. The rationale of claim 10 rejection is applied to reject claim 25. In addition, Touma discloses one or more processors configured by computer readable instructions (see Touma, FIG. 7).
Claim(s) 11 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Touma in view of US Patent Publication No. 20090226084 A1 to Courchesne et al.
Regarding claim 11, Touma discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1. However, Touma does not expressly disclose wherein the compression method comprises a difference-encoding compression method, and wherein modifying the compression method comprises modifying the compression method to assume the difference when encoding the unused pixels is zero.
On the other hand, Courchesne discloses the compression method comprises a difference-encoding compression method (Courchesne, para. [0016], disclosing the image data goes through a CER (compute differences, encode differences and rotate) process, indicating the CER process can correspond to a difference-encoding compression method), and wherein modifying the compression method comprises modifying the compression method to assume the difference when encoding the similar pixels is zero (Courchesne, para. [0019], disclosing when the differences between adjacent pixels are minimal, the encoded difference will be approximately zero, indicating the differences between adjacent pixels are minimal indicates the pixels are similar, and the difference will be assumed to be zero). Because Touma discloses populating the unmapped pixels with an average color value, combining Touma and Courchesne will have adjacent unmapped pixels having the same value, and the difference between these pixels will be zero, therefore it will assume the difference when encoding the unused pixels is zero.
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Touma and Courchesne. The suggestion/motivation would have been for improving adaptive lossless data compression of color image data, as suggested by Courchesne (see Courchesne, para. [0002]).
Regarding claim 26, it recites similar limitations of claim 11 but in a system form. The rationale of claim 11 rejection is applied to reject claim 26. In addition, Touma discloses one or more processors configured by computer readable instructions (see Touma, FIG. 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15 and 27-30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and resolve the 35 USC 112(b) issues.
Regarding claim 12, none of the prior art references on the record discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein the compression method uses difference-encoding to encode DC coefficients of discrete cosine transforms, and wherein modifying the compression method comprises modifying the compression method to assume DC coefficients for unused pixels have a zero difference from previously-encountered DC coefficients.
Claims 13-15 depend from claim 12 with respective additional limitations.
Claims 27-30 recite similar limitations of claims 12-15 respectively.
Therefore, claims 12-15 and 17-30 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and resolve the 35 USC 112(b) issues.
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 HAIXIA DU whose telephone number is (571)270-5646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am-4:00 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, Kee Tung can be reached at 571-272-7794. 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.
/HAIXIA DU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights