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
Applicant submitted two non-patent literature documents in the Information Disclosure Statement, but only provided a translation of the abstracts. 37 C.F.R. 1.98(a)(3)(i) allows “a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in § 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information.” Here, the person most knowledgeable appears to be Tomonori Kubota, the lead author of both papers. A review of the figures and English words show that the abstract does not necessarily capture all of the relevant disclosure, and thus these references have not been considered beyond the English language abstracts. Submitting translations of the complete text of each document is expected to resolve this issue.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not “enable the Office and the public generally to determine quickly from a cursory inspection the nature and gist of the technical disclosure.” 37 CFR 1.72(b). Specifically, the abstract is not specific enough, see, e.g., the below 112 rejections.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 recite “encod[e] … the image data at a compression rate which is determined such that a result of each of the plurality of process acquires a specific accuracy,” but this is unlimited functional claiming because it is claiming the result rather than the steps to achieve this result. MPEP 2173.05(g).
Claims 1, 9, and 10 recite “AI,” but this is unlimited functional claiming because of the wide variety of artificial intelligence techniques. MPEP 2173.05(g).
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 (all claims) 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.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 recite “when a plurality of process are performed,” but the claim does not specify which processes are in the plurality, so it is unclear how to determine whether the correct set of processes are performed. Additionally, it is unclear if “when” is interpreted as “on the condition that” or “at the time of.”
Claim 1 recites “on decoded data which is generated by decoding image data which is encoded.” It is unclear if decoding the data is intended as a required step or not. If the intent is that the decoding has already occurred, it is unclear which properties distinguish this data from other data. MPEP 2113. For example, given image data, how does one know whether or not lossless encoding and decoding have occurred?
Claims 1, 9, and 10 recite “specific accuracy,” but this is subjective because the accuracy is not specified by the claim. MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV).
Claim 2 recites “the result,” but this lacks sufficient antecedent basis because the earlier recitation in claim 1 was to each, but this is for the plurality. MPEP 2173.05(e). Additionally, it is unclear if result refers to the AI or each of the plurality of processes.
Claims 3, 5, and 7 also recite “the result,” and the antecedent basis is similarly unclear. MPEP 2173.05(e).
Claims 3, 4, 7, and 8 recite “allowable,” but this is subjective. MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV). One option to overcome this rejection is to specify an objective standard.
Claims 3 and 7 recite both “equal to or less” and “equal to or more,” but it is unclear what happens when the value is “equal,” such that both conditions are met.
Claims 4 and 8 recite “approaches,” but this is a relative term without sufficient guidance in the specification. MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claim 5 recites “is to be,” but it is unclear if this is an intended use, or who determines this. MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV).
Claim 5 recites “corresponds,” but this is subjective. MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV). One option to overcome this rejection is to specify an objective standard, such as “is.”
Claim 6 recites “switching rate,” but it is not clear if this is intended to mean the rate at which switching occurs (i.e., the plain meaning), or switching between compression rates (i.e., how it is used in the specification).
Claim 6 recites “each region,” but does not specify each region of what (i.e., how does one know what the complete list is?)
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 1 (and its dependents) recite a system, and machines are eligible subject matter.
Claim 9 recites a method, and processes are eligible subject matter.
Claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer readable recoding medium, and manufactures are eligible subject matter.
Step 2A, prong one: All of the elements of claims 1-10 are a mental process as per RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract”). MPEP 2106. Further, the various models are also mental processes, see example 47, claim 2, element (d) (from the July 2024 AI subject matter eligibility examples). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) explains that use of a generic computer or in a computer environment is still a mental process. In particular, this section begins by citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 US 63 (1972). “The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea.” In Benson the Supreme Court did not separately analyze the computer hardware at issue; the specifics of what hardware was claimed is only included in an appendix to the decision.
Because there are no additional elements, no further analysis is required for Step 2A, prong two or Step 2B.
Examiner Note
Certain of the claims are directed to different inventions, such as independent claim 1 is to encoding, whereas independent claims 9 and 10 are to decoding and encoding. These have been examined together because there is not presently a search burden. However, if Applicant were to amend the claims to go in different directions, election by original present may result. MPEP 818.02(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or § 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 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-10 (all claims) as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kubota, Tomonori, Takanori Nakao, and Eiji Yoshida. "A high-compression video coding method for video analysis using Deep Learning." IEICE Technical Report; IEICE Tech. Rep. 119.456 (2020): 121-126 (“Kubota”). Applicant has identified this document with a date of February 27, 2020 in the Information Disclosure statement, more than one year prior to the presently asserted priority date of September 24, 2021.
Applicant has only submitted an English translation of the abstract of Kubota. However, a review of the figures shows that there is relevant disclosure in the untranslated portions of Kubota. Kubota is in Japanese and both inventors are listed as living in Japan (suggesting that they both read Japanese). MPEP 609.04(a)(III). Additionally, one of the present inventors is the first author of Kubota (i.e., he is Kubota), and all of the Kubota co-authors have emails addresses at Fujitsu.com, the assignee.
Because Kubota is in Japanese and the examiner was not able to obtain a translation, the untranslated disclosure is treated as inherently disclosing the below claim elements. MPEP 2112. If Applicant submits a complete translation of Kubota, the examiner will remove the inherency theory and consider the translated document on its face.
Below the examiner has provided a mapping of the abstract to the claims to provide the Applicant the general thrust of how the examiner sees the relevance of the abstract.
Additionally, there are technical details in the claims, that if not taught by Kubota, are legally obvious. For example, claims 1, 9 and 10 recite “a plurality of processes.” Even if Kubota disclosed a deep learning algorithm on a single process, a plurality of processes is a known substitute. Similarly, computations in parallel and serial are known substitutes. MPEP 2144.06(II).
1. An image processing system comprising:
a memory; and (Kubota, abstract, That Kubota states that this was actually performed teaches the claimed computer hardware)
a processor coupled to the memory and configured to; (Kubota, abstract, That Kubota states that this was actually performed teaches the claimed computer hardware)
encode, when a plurality of process are performed, (Kubota, abstract, “high-compression”)
by AI, (Kubota, abstract, “deep learning”)
on decoded data which is generated by decoding image data which is encoded, the image data at a compression rate which is determined such that a result of each of the plurality of process acquires a specific accuracy. (Kubota, abstract, “The method analyzes effects for an accuracy of an inference caused by degradation of image by video coding, and image parts which are important for the accuracy are encoded with compression rate which does not affect the accuracy and image parts which are unnecessary for the accuracy are encoded with a high compression rate” Kubota’s “unnecessary for accuracy” teaches the claimed “acquires a specific accuracy”)
2. The image processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to monitor the result of the plurality of processes by the AI. (Kubota, abstract, “The method analyzes effects”)
3. The image processing system according to claim 2, wherein, when the plurality of processes by the AI are performed in parallel and the result of one process of the plurality of processes performed by the AI is equal to or less than an allowable accuracy, (Kubota, abstract, “image parts which are important for the accuracy are encoded with compression rate which does not affect the accuracy” Kubota’s important for accuracy teaches the claimed result that is less than an allowable accuracy because Kubota employs less compression to maintain the accuracy.)
the processor is configured to determine a new compression rate such that the result of the one process is equal to or more than the allowable accuracy. (Kubota, abstract, “image parts which are unnecessary for the accuracy are encoded with a high compression rate”)
4. The image processing system according to claim 3, wherein, when the plurality of processes by the AI are performed in parallel and a minimum accuracy among accuracies of results of the plurality of processes performed by the AI is equal to or higher than the allowable accuracy, (Kubota, abstract, “image parts which are unnecessary for the accuracy are encoded with a high compression rate”)
the processor is configured to determine a new compression rate such that the minimum accuracy approaches the allowable accuracy. (Kubota, abstract, “image parts which are unnecessary for the accuracy are encoded with a high compression rate”)
5. The image processing system according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to switch, when the plurality of processes are sequentially performed by the AI and image quality for performing the (x+1)-th process is to be higher than image quality for performing the x-th process, switches the compression rate of a region corresponding to the result of the x-th process to a compression rate lower than the compression rate at the time of performing the x-th process. (Kubota, abstract, “image parts which are important for the accuracy are encoded with compression rate which does not affect the accuracy and image parts which are unnecessary for the accuracy are encoded with a high compression rate.” The image parts are chosen such that they meet the claimed sequence. Additionally, choosing such a sequence is obvious. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C). Alternatively, if the processes are not performed sequentially, this is not invoked.)
6. The image processing system according to claim 5, wherein rule information in which each switching rate which provides the image quality for each of the plurality of processes by the AI, a condition for switching to each switching rate, and each region to be switched to each switching rate are defined, and (Kubota, abstract, “image parts which are important for the accuracy are encoded with compression rate which does not affect the accuracy and image parts which are unnecessary for the accuracy are encoded with a high compression rate.”)
the processor is configured to switch the compression rate of each region based on results of the plurality of processes by the AI and the rule information. (Kubota, abstract, “The method analyzes effects for an accuracy of an inference caused by degradation of image by video coding”)
7. The image processing system according to claim 6, wherein, when the result of one of the plurality of processes by the AI is equal to or less than the allowable accuracy, the processor is configured to determine a new compression rate for the region in which the process is performed so that the result of the process is equal to or more than the allowable accuracy. (Kubota, abstract, “image parts which are important for the accuracy are encoded with compression rate which does not affect the accuracy”)
8. The image processing system according to claim 6, wherein, when a minimum accuracy among accuracies of results of the plurality of processes performed by the AI is equal to or higher than the allowable accuracy, the processor is configured to determine a new compression rate for the region such that the minimum accuracy approaches the allowable accuracy. (Kubota, abstract, “image parts which are unnecessary for the accuracy are encoded with a high compression rate”)
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected as per claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US10085032B2 – abstract, “second compression scheme”
US11221990B2 – title, “Ultra-high compression of images based on deep learning”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID ORANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1799. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9-5.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/DAVID ORANGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663