DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 2023.
Claims 1- are pending.
Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority. of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on has/have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449).
Specification
----------------------------------------------- Spec. Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: **
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims ** objected to because of the following informalities: **. Appropriate correction is required.
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 following title is suggested: **
The use of the trademark ** has been noted in this application. It should be capitalized wherever it appears and be accompanied by the generic terminology.
Although the use of trademarks is permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as trademarks.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are not clearly limited to the non-transitory medium. The specification also does not clearly define the claimed " " as being limited to a non-transitory medium.
Note the following description in the specification of the present invention.
Claims 21-38, 40, 42-50, 52-54, 56-60, 62 and 63 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) since the steps in the claim 21 for “generating a syntax element…encoding…N leading bins…bypass encoding any remaining bins…and signaling bits…” and the similar steps, functions and/or details claimed in the other independent claims and dependent claims are considered to be an abstract idea (as in the 101 related court cases of Digitech - “Organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations” and Electric Power Group - “Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and RcogniCorp – “Encoding and decoding image data” in the January 2018: Eligibility Quick Reference Sheet) that is considered to be concept relating to organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work and the claim does not include any additional elements that can be considered to be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the above stated functions of the claimed “processor” and the “memory” are related to conventional functions normally performed by the these elements.
It is suggested that the claims be amended to incorporate additional elements related to the encoding/decoding process that bring forth tangible and practical aspect of the invention thus giving meaning to the claimed invention.
Bitstream Claim interpretation
Claim 3 is directed to a computer readable medium that stores generated bitstream.
The bitstream is being treated as a product that is the result of the process (method). The steps are not required elements of claim 3, so they only limit the invention in terms of how they define the contents of the information in the bitstream. MPEP §2113
The contents of the bitstream, defined by how the bitstream was generated, only describes the content of the information in the bitstream and as result are descriptive language. See MPEP §2111.05. The bitstream has no functional relationship with the claimed non-transitory computer-readable recording medium.
Claim Interpretation - 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.
By reciting intra-predicting of samples of depth data of video images for a first block of depth data using equal and one-quarter sized blocks of the first blocks and deriving/receiving residual data that is used to encode/reconstruct the first block of depth data, and in combination with the other elements/details of the claim, the claim 1 and other similar independent claims each define a process/device/system which gives meaning for obtaining tangible and practical result of performing an intra prediction of depth samples of image in order to efficiently encode/decode image that is described in the specification.
Given so, the each of the claims as mentioned above are considered to claim a processes which are outside of the realm of the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
---------------------------------------------------1st paragraph rejection
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(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.
Claim ** 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. **
---------------------------------------------------2nd paragraph rejection
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “customized” in claim 1, 3, 4,
--------------------------------------- Lack of antecedent basis
Claim ** recites the limitation "**" in **
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Means plus Function - 35 USC § 112
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations “collection unit”, “analysis unit”, “generation unit” are not considered to invoke 112(f) since these elements are described in the specification as a software unit having a specific algorithm executed by a processor with a memory.
Claim limitation “light source unit” and “laser sources” are not considered to invoke 112(f) since these elements are well-understood structural terminology to one of ordinary skilled in the art, i.e. conveying structure.
Claim limitation “” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “**” coupled with functional language “” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) “a splitting detection unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the at least one corresponding structure described in the specification for each of the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“ “ :
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Mapping Notation
In this office action, following notations are being used to refer to the paragraph numbers or column number and lines of portions of the cited reference.
In this office action, following notations are being used to refer to the paragraph numbers or column number and lines of portions of the cited reference.
[0005] (Paragraph number [0005])
C5 (Column 5)
Pa5 (Page 5)
S5 (Section 5)
Furthermore, unless necessary to distinguish from other references in this action, “et al.” will be omitted when referring to the reference.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) and (a2) as being anticipated by et al. ()
1. An information processing system comprising:
at least one processor configured to: cause a terminal of a user to display, if a captured image of an image processing apparatus captured by the terminal includes an operation screen of the image processing apparatus, the operation screen included in the captured image as a terminal-side operation screen; and
“[0020] The display device 12 is a device such as a liquid crystal display disposed in a housing of the mobile terminal apparatus 1, and displays various screens to the user. The input device 13 is a device that detects a user operation, and includes a touch panel, hard keys, and the like disposed on the display device 12. The storage device 14 is a nonvolatile storage device such as a flash memory, and stores programs and data. The image capturing device 15 includes an image sensor and an optical system that forms an image of light from a subject on the image sensor, and generates image data of a captured image.”
“[0034] Returning to FIG. 3, the arithmetic processing device 33 is a computer having a CPU, a ROM, and a RAM, and operates as various processing portions by loading programs stored in the ROM or a storage device (not shown) into the RAM and executing the programs by the CPU. The arithmetic processing device 33 operates as a controller 41 and a remote operation processing portion 42.”
cause each of the terminal and the image processing apparatus to perform processing according to an operation on an element included on the terminal-side operation screen.
2. The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: cause either processing for activating a camera to capture an image of an operation screen of the image processing apparatus or processing for activating a software keyboard for accepting text input to be performed as the processing by the terminal according to the operation on the element; and
“[0023] For example, the user terminal 10 determines whether a captured image of the image processing apparatus 50 includes an operation screen of the image processing apparatus 50. The user terminal 10 also determines the types of elements on the operation screen. If it is determined that a captured image of the image processing apparatus 50 includes the operation screen of the image processing apparatus 50, the user terminal 10 displays the operation screen included in the captured image as a user interface. Specifically, the user terminal 10 extracts the display area of the operation screen included in the captured image and performs enlargement, tilt correction, and the like to generate a terminal-side operation screen as a user interface enabling operation of the image processing apparatus 50, and displays the terminal-side operation screen on a display unit.”
cause processing for accepting the operation as an operation on an operation screen of the image processing apparatus to be performed as the processing by the image processing apparatus according to the operation on the element.
“[0023] For example, the user terminal 10 determines whether a captured image of the image processing apparatus 50 includes an operation screen of the image processing apparatus 50. The user terminal 10 also determines the types of elements on the operation screen. If it is determined that a captured image of the image processing apparatus 50 includes the operation screen of the image processing apparatus 50, the user terminal 10 displays the operation screen included in the captured image as a user interface. Specifically, the user terminal 10 extracts the display area of the operation screen included in the captured image and performs enlargement, tilt correction, and the like to generate a terminal-side operation screen as a user interface enabling operation of the image processing apparatus 50, and displays the terminal-side operation screen on a display unit.”
3. The information processing system according to claim 2, wherein if the operation on the element is an operation of changing display content of a screen, the at least one processor is configured to cause processing for activating the camera to capture the image of an operation screen of the image processing apparatus after the display content of the screen is changed to be performed as the processing by the terminal according to the operation.
“[0023] For example, the user terminal 10 determines whether a captured image of the image processing apparatus 50 includes an operation screen of the image processing apparatus 50. The user terminal 10 also determines the types of elements on the operation screen. If it is determined that a captured image of the image processing apparatus 50 includes the operation screen of the image processing apparatus 50, the user terminal 10 displays the operation screen included in the captured image as a user interface. Specifically, the user terminal 10 extracts the display area of the operation screen included in the captured image and performs enlargement, tilt correction, and the like to generate a terminal-side operation screen as a user interface enabling operation of the image processing apparatus 50, and displays the terminal-side operation screen on a display unit.”
4. The information processing system according to claim 3, wherein if the terminal has activated the camera and the operation screen of the image processing apparatus is displayed as an object of image capture on the terminal, the at least one processor is configured to cause the terminal to capture an image of the operation screen.
“[0024] Also, the user terminal 10 performs processing according to an operation on an element included on the terminal-side operation screen. For example, the user terminal 10 activates a camera for capturing an image of the operation screen of the image processing apparatus 50 as processing according to an operation on an element included on the terminal-side operation screen. In this case, if the operation on an element included on the terminal-side operation screen is an operation of pressing a button for changing screens, the user terminal 10 activates a camera for capturing an image of the operation screen of the image processing apparatus 50 after the screen change as processing according to the operation. In the case of activating a camera for capturing an image of the operation screen of the image processing apparatus 50 after a screen change, the user terminal 10 may capture an image of the operation screen automatically when the operation screen of the image processing apparatus 50 is displayed as the object of image capture in a viewfinder.”
5. The information processing system according to claim 2, wherein if the operation on the element is an operation of selecting an object to input text into, the at least one processor is configured to cause the processing for activating the software keyboard for accepting text input to be performed as the processing by the terminal according to the operation.
“[0044] The display control unit 105 controls the displaying of various information on the display unit 16 of the user terminal 10. Specifically, the display control unit 105 controls the display, on the display unit 16, of the viewfinder of the activated camera. The display control unit 105 also controls the display, on the display unit 16, of the image processing apparatus 50 treated as the subject. The display control unit 105 also controls the display, on the display unit 16, of the terminal-side operation screen generated by the UI correction unit 104. The display control unit 105 also controls the display, on the display unit 16, of a software keyboard for accepting text input.”
6. The information processing system according to claim 5, wherein if the terminal has activated the software keyboard, the at least one processor is configured to accept an operation of copying and pasting text data stored in the terminal.
“[0083] The information processing system according to (((5))), wherein if the terminal has activated the software keyboard, the at least one processor is configured to accept an operation of copying and pasting text data stored in the terminal.”
7. The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine whether each of one or more objects forming the terminal-side operation screen corresponds to the element and to determine a type of the element on a basis of a result of machine learning using information pertaining to designs and rules governing the operation screen of the image processing apparatus as training data.
“[0084] The information processing system according to any one of (((1))) to (((6))), wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine whether each of one or more objects forming the terminal-side operation screen corresponds to the element and to determine a type of the element on a basis of a result of machine learning using information pertaining to designs and rules governing the operation screen of the image processing apparatus as training data.”
8. The information processing system according to claim 7, wherein the training data further includes information associating information about an operation performed on the element with a captured image of an operation screen displayed on the image processing apparatus in response to the operation.
“[0084] The information processing system according to any one of (((1))) to (((6))), wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine whether each of one or more objects forming the terminal-side operation screen corresponds to the element and to determine a type of the element on a basis of a result of machine learning using information pertaining to designs and rules governing the operation screen of the image processing apparatus as training data.”
9. The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: manage the terminal-side operation screen displayed on the terminal in response to the operation performed on the element in association with information pertaining to the operation; and cause the terminal to display, if the operation on the element is performed, the terminal-side operation screen associated with the information pertaining to the operation.
10. The information processing system according to claim 9, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the terminal to display the terminal-side operation screen and cause the terminal to display a button for activating a camera to capture an image of an operation screen of the image processing apparatus.
11. An information processing method comprising: causing a terminal of a user to display, if a captured image of an image processing apparatus captured by the terminal includes an operation screen of the image processing apparatus, the operation screen included in the captured image as a terminal-side operation screen; and causing each of the terminal and the image processing apparatus to perform processing according to an operation on an element included on the terminal-side operation screen.
12. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process comprising: causing a terminal of a user to display, if a captured image of an image processing apparatus captured by the terminal includes an operation screen of the image processing apparatus, the operation screen included in the captured image as a terminal-side operation screen; and causing each of the terminal and the image processing apparatus to perform processing according to an operation on an element included on the terminal-side operation screen.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim*** rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ***.
Regarding the claim , discloses the invention substantially as claimed as mentioned above for the claim .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Lee and apply them on the teachings of Wittman to incorporate the weighted prediction of Lee when performing motion compensation prediction in Wittman as taught by Lee.
One would have been motivated as implementing weighted prediction is a well-known scheme that would improve image in the system of Wittman as taught by Lee.
Unless stated otherwise, the same explanation for the rationale for the following dependent claims applies as given for the independent claim.
Regarding the claim 12, Wittman-Lee discloses,
------------------------------------------------------------------ Other Form words…
Same explanation for the rationale applies as given for the claim 3.
Regarding the claims 14-20, they recite elements that are at least included in the claims 1-5, 1 and 1 above but in a different claim form and/or encoding/decoding counterpart that are reciprocal. Therefore, the same rationale for the rejection of the claims 1-5, 1 and 1 applies.
Regarding the processor, memory and storage medium in the claims, see [00].
Regarding the claim 29, it recite elements that are at least included in the claims 1 above, but in Means plus function form rather than an apparatus for coding form.
Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of the claim 1 applies equally as well to the claim 29.
The preamble is considered to carry no weight since the elements in the body of the claim does not give meaning to the stated "video decoder” and/or the disclosed video encoder of Tech is considered to disclose inverse of encoder which is decoder.
Furthermore, the Decoder 550 in Hannuksela corresponds to the structure corresponding to the means plus function elements in the claims 26-30.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 17 and 23 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding the claims 6, 17 and 23, applicants uniquely claimed distinct features, which are not found in the prior art, either singularly or in an obvious combination of all the limitation of the claim, the distinct features being… the processor is further configured to.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. et al. () and et al. () disclose relevant art related to the subject matter of the present invention.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE N NOH whose telephone number is (571)270-0686. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAE N NOH/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights