DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendments and Remarks received 06/25/2026 in which claims 36 and 37 are cancelled, claims 1, 11, 18, 33, 38, and 39 are amended, and no claims are added as new claims.
Response to Arguments
Examiner incorporates herein previous Responses to Arguments.
On page 14 of the Remarks, Applicant contends, “Taaffe does not ‘determine a number of pixels in a run compressible via gradient encoding,…’” Examiner disagrees. The explicit language of Taaffe explicitly explains, in a paragraph describing delta encoding wherein adjacent pixel values are coded differentially, that the length of runs determines the effectiveness or efficiency of the compression method used. Applicant incorrectly characterizes Taaffe’s teachings as “rest[ing] on a comparison of run-of-sames length against a table of compression ratios.” Taaffe makes no such representation and instead clearly states that the table is merely informative, stating, “In addition, the maximum compression ratio is listed.” Such informative representations have no reasonable connection to a comparison being employed regarding such information. Furthermore, Applicant’s argument focuses too keenly on the exact implementation of Taaffe rather than what Taaffe evidences, which is that the skilled artisan was aware of adaptively determining the best compression coding schemes among various coding schemes including run-length encoding (RLE) and delta coding (DPCM or differential coding or predictive coding) by comparing the length of runs generated by each encoding algorithm. When considering these teachings in combination with the teachings of Schmidt, which teaches considering run length for deciding whether RLE is an efficient encoding algorithm, teaches or suggests Applicant’s comparison of run lengths between RLE and gradient coding to decide which approach to employ. Furthermore, the rejection now additionally relies on the related teachings of Laney to further evidence that the skilled artisan had in their possession the knowledge to compare length of runs between coding modes to decide the most efficient mode to use. Therefore, the combination of teachings evidences that the approach Applicant asserts as novel was already in possession of the skilled artisan at the time of Applicant’s filing and therefore Applicant’s purported invention is not patentable under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Examiner kindly requests Applicant’s assistance in explaining how the averred invention works in view of Applicant’s Remarks. Examiner specifically requests Applicant provide a small data set and demonstrate how the coding methods and the length of runs of the two coding methods is calculated on that data set. A small data set that would demonstrate the claimed invention is formally requested under 37 CFR 1.105. Examiner is curious whether the delta codes are subjected to run-length coding or not.
Examiner reproduces the following paragraphs from a previous Response to Arguments for posterity and to demonstrate notable aspects of this prosecution record.
On page 12 of the Remarks, Applicant’s arguments about “Official Notice” demonstrate confusion. First, Applicant characterizes Examiner’s finding of fact, that run-length encoding and gradient encoding are long-standing lossless compression schemes know in the art, as “rest[ing] on an unsupported invocation of official notice….” despite admitting, “Here, no ‘Official Notice’ was ever invoked on the record.” Applicant’s argument demonstrates confusion about whether Official Notice was actually invoked or not. Regardless of whether a factual finding made by the Office falls under “Official Notice,” the result is the same for Applicant. Applicant should rebut the finding if Applicant disagrees. Regarding this first point of confusion, MPEP 2144.03 is quite clear that reliance on common knowledge in the art or well-known prior art can be interpreted as taking Official Notice. Therefore, Applicant’s confusion about whether Official Notice was taken is unreasonable.
Second, Applicant’s arguments also demonstrate confusion about whether an invocation of Official Notice can be unsupported without evidence. Regarding this second inquiry, MPEP 2144.03 is quite clear, “Official Notice without documentary evidence to support an examiner’s conclusion is permissible….” Indeed, the whole point of Official Notice is to make a finding of fact without evidence. MPEP 2144.03. Therefore, to argue against Examiner’s Official Notice because it lacked evidence is unpersuasive of error.
Third, Applicant’s arguments also demonstrate confusion about whether the Official Notice was “un-noticed.” Because Applicant literally quoted the text of the Official Notice in the Remarks, it seems impossible to argue, as Applicant does, that the Official Notice was somehow “un-noticed.” MPEP 2144.03 is quite clear that Official Notice in a Non-Final Office Action is preferable to Official Notice first made in a Final Office Action out of concern for a lack of notice and an opportunity to respond. Here, the fact that Applicant devoted a full page to procedural (i.e. not substantive) arguments against Official Notice, because Applicant properly identified, and even quoted a portion of, the Official Notice from the Non-Final Office Action, and because the “un-noticed” Official Notice was made in a Non-Final Office Action, it is unreasonable to assert the Official Notice was “un-noticed.” That is, clearly Applicant has demonstrated through Applicant’s arguments that Applicant is on-notice regarding Examiner’s factual finding, that run-length and differential coding are long-standing lossless compression schemes known in the art, and clearly Applicant has had an opportunity to respond.
Fourth, Applicant’s arguments also demonstrate confusion about whether the rejection relies on Official Notice alone. In view of the extensive discussion (including mapping) of the teachings of Schmidt and Taaffe for the rejection of the claims, it is unreasonable for Applicant to argue that any rejection relies on Official Notice alone.
Fifth, Applicant includes what appears to be a bad citation to MPEP 2144.01, asserting that it says “Facts relating to patentability must not be officially noticed.” As cited, Examiner was unable to find any instance of this statement in the current version of the MPEP, nor any past versions going back to Edition 6, Revision 1 (Sept 1995). The Sixth Edition, Revision 1, appears to be the first time there was a Section 2144.01 and it was titled, “Implicit Disclosure.” The content of Section 2144.01 has not changed much in the last 30 years. Examiner requests Applicant’s assistance by requesting Applicant furnish a copy of the document or portion having the quoted text as cited to Examiner. Examiner further reminds Applicant of the duty of candor toward the Office. 37 C.F.R. 11.303.
Sixth, Applicant contends conclusory invocations of better results or common practice does not satisfy requirements under 35 U.S.C. 103, especially when unsupported by evidence. MPEP 2144.03 explicitly states, “it might be reasonable to take official notice of the fact that it is desirable to make something faster, cheaper, better, or stronger without the specific support of documentary evidence.” (emphasis added). Therefore, Applicant’s argument that Examiner is constrained as a factfinder and cannot find facts using Official Notice regarding better results or common practice is contrary to law and policy.
Seventh, Applicant has not properly traversed the factual assertion or Official Notice. While Applicant levied numerous procedural complaints, asserting the Official Notice was somehow either unfair or improper, Applicant never actually addressed the merits of the factual finding, per se. As MPEP 2144.03.C explains, Applicant must explain, “why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art.” Applicant insisting, “that the examiner provide documentary evidence in support of an officially-noticed fact is not a proper traversal.” Id. Because Applicant’s traversal is not adequate, Examiner’s statements regarding RLE and differential coding, as well as Examiner’s statements regarding different data benefiting from different data compression schemes, is taken to be admitted prior art. Id.
Salomon, David, Data Compression: The Complete Reference, 3rd Ed. ISBN 0-387-40697-2, Springer-Verlag, 2004, pp. 898. In a book spanning almost a thousand pages, wherein the first many pages are introductory fluff, the two coding schemes Examiner found well-established in the art are found extremely early on, on pages 20 and 24–25. On page 20, RLE is introduced, and on page 24, Relative Coding, which is differential coding, which is gradient coding, which is delta coding, etc. is described. A copy of these pages is furnished with this Office Action.
Furthermore, MPEP 2141 explains, “any failure by Office personnel to follow the guidelines is neither appealable nor petitionable” because the guidelines in the MPEP do not constitute substantive rule making, and “are not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party against the Office.” When facts are not on one’s side, one often argues procedure, and when procedure is not on one’s side, one often resorts to ad hominem attack. In this case, it is both unreasonable, and otherwise unavailing, to argue, as Applicant does, that Examiner did not follow proper examination protocol. In Examiner’s experience, it is better to focus the discussion on technological distinctions the claims may have over the cited prior art rather than try to convince Examiner that he performs his role of establishing a factual record poorly or improperly. For at least all the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s procedural complaint regarding Official Notice is unavailing.
On page 12 of the Remarks, Applicant contends Examiner reduced Applicant’s claim to a “gist.” Instead, consistent with MPEP 2103(I)(C), Examiner read the claimed invention as a whole and assigned appropriate limiting effect to recited features. Consistent with MPEP 2141, Examiner articulated a factual conclusion consistent with his expertise and authority to make conclusions of fact and law and based on a large body of evidence spanning many references. The Office Action cited exemplary teachings from a number of prior art references along with reasoning in the Non-Final Office Action and also under the Conclusion Section of the Non-Final Office Action as it related to the specific features of Applicant’s claims. Indeed, MPEP 2141(II)(C) states, “Office personnel may rely on their own technical expertise to describe the knowledge and skills of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Given Examiner’s authority as factfinder, given the numerous teachings of the prior art as a whole, given the scant detail provided in Applicant’s claims, it was reasonable for Examiner to find the claimed invention obvious in view of the prior art and level of skill in the art. And any procedural argument that Examiner’s findings of fact run afoul of the “gist” rule is a misapplication of the rule. Examiner resists such an argument, which unreasonably chills efforts by Examiner to establish a complete record regarding his interpretation of the claims, the content of the prior art, and the knowledge of a person skilled in the art.
On page 13 of the Remarks, Applicant contends Examiner “mischaracterizes Schmidt’s teaching,” claiming Schmidt does not consider a longest run, but merely a “long enough” run for RLE. Examiner disagrees. Schmidt literally teaches determining for a scan line of pixels, “the longest run is only 7 pixels, and the smallest is 1 pixel.” (emphasis added). Therefore, Examiner appears to accurately characterize the teachings of Schmidt while Applicant seems to either misapprehend or mischaracterize Schmidt’s teachings. Importantly, Schmidt is explaining what was already well-known to the skilled artisan and manifestly obvious to anyone having skill in this art, that RLE is not guaranteed to be the most efficient compression scheme and may actually expand the data if the data exhibits characteristics that do not lend themselves well to RLE, in which case some other form of compression should be considered instead (see e.g. Schmidt, col 9, ll. 55–60 and col. 10, ll. 19–23). Second, Applicant’s argument assumes incorrectly that a teaching of finding a longest run is at odds with finding whether a run is long enough. Indeed, one skilled in this art would find Schmidt to teach or suggest evaluating whether a longest run is long enough to select RLE as a chosen compression scheme for a region of an image. Conventional RLE schemes must deal with short runs from time to time and such runs are acceptable when implementing RLE. Indeed, short runs may just mean the data is already substantially uncorrelated and may mean no compression scheme is going to be particularly successful at compressing. Schmidt teaches that a popular choice for determining whether RLE is going to be beneficial is determining how long the longest runs are. The longest runs, quite obviously, offer the biggest compression performance because the most raw bits are swept up into the fewest coded bits under RLE. For all the foregoing reasons, Schmidt’s teachings and Examiner’s characterization of Schmidt’s teachings are sound. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is sustained.
Other claims are not argued separately. Remarks, 18.
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 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.
Claims 1–35, 38, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 5,710,561), Taaffe (US 5,046,027), and Laney (US 5,467,134).
Examiner notes run length encoding and gradient encoding (i.e. delta encoding) are long-standing lossless compression schemes known in the art and that their properties, including optimal use-cases, are also well-known in the art. Examiner interprets the claimed invention to be nothing more than the obvious concept that one encoding mode for a string of pixels might be more desirable than the other encoding mode under certain, known, circumstances such that selection between them would yield better results than choosing a single method. See e.g. Seo (US 2009/0161759 A1), paragraph [0020], explaining that rate-distortion optimization (RDO) calculates whether differential pulse code modulation (DPCM) is applied to pixels of a residual block. Examiner further notes it is common to perform a second pass RLE on the result of either a RLE or gradient (delta) encoding pass.
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Schmidt, Taaffe, and Laney teaches or suggests a method, comprising: for at least a portion of an image, determining: a number of pixels in a run compressible via run-length encoding, the run compressible via run-length encoding comprising a sequence of pixels having a same pixel value; a number of pixels in a run compressible via gradient encoding, the run compressible via gradient encoding comprising a sequence of pixels where a difference between adjacent pixel values is the same; and a highest number of: the number of pixels in the run compressible via run-length encoding, and the number of pixels in the run compressible via gradient encoding, the highest number determined by comparing the number of pixels in the run compressible via run-length encoding with the number of pixels in the run compressible via gradient encoding (Examiner notes gradient coding is the same as delta coding; Taaffe, col. 11, ln.62–col. 12, ln. 2: teaches time efficient schemes for quickly decoding image data include run-length encoding (RLE) and delta coding; see also Taaffe, cols. 12–15: describing two RLE schemes and two Delta coding schemes; Taaffe, col. 17, ln. 61–col. 18, ln. 26: teaches that either RLE or delta coding can be adaptively selected for different areas of an image based on the length of runs; While Taaffe teaches basing the selection of coding mode (RLE or Delta) on the length of runs, Schmidt, col. 9, ll. 45–51: teaches the longest run of pixels can be considered when determining whether it would be efficient to use RLE or not; Schmidt’s teachings would suggest that a longest run of pixels being less than a threshold could be used to inform Taaffe’s decision of coding mode based on run length wherein the longer runs are best associated with RLE and shorter runs are best associated with delta coding; Examiner notes delta coding can itself benefit from coding the run lengths of the delta values; Laney, col. 10, ll. 27–49: teaches a length of run variable that is used to make a compression decision about whether to code a string of pixels in run-length mode or absolute mode under the rationale that one or the other mode is more efficient and teaches that under a similar rationale one could consider whether delta coding would be more efficient; Laney’s teaching, when combined with the teachings of Taaffe and Schmidt, teaches or suggests comparing a run length between encoding modes based on which mode generates the longer length of run); and selectively encoding at least some pixels of the image via the one of run-length encoding or gradient encoding corresponding to the determined highest number (Taaffe, col. 17, ln. 61–col. 18, ln. 26: teaches that either RLE or delta coding can be adaptively selected for different areas of an image based on the length of runs; While Taaffe teaches basing the selection of coding mode (RLE or Delta) on the length of runs, Schmidt, col. 9, ll. 45–51: teaches the longest run of pixels can be considered when determining whether it would be efficient to use RLE or not; see also Schmidt, col 9, ll. 55–60 and col. 10, ll. 19–23: teaching RLE is not guaranteed to be the most efficient compression scheme and may actually expand the data if the data exhibits characteristics that does not lend itself well to RLE, in which case some other form of compression should be considered instead).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Taaffe, with those of Schmidt, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice RLE, delta coding, or other lossless compression techniques would be led to their relevant teachings and because both Taaffe and Schmidt are describing the limitations of RLE for run lengths less than a threshold length such that the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Taaffe and Schmidt used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Taaffe and Schmidt, with those of Laney, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice RLE, delta coding, or other lossless compression techniques would be led to their relevant teachings and because all three references are describing the limitations of RLE for run lengths less than a threshold length such that the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Taaffe, Schmidt, and Laney used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Schmidt, Taaffe, and Laney teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, comprising: selectively encoding remaining pixels of the image via one or more of run-length encoding or gradient encoding at least partially based on respective determined highest numbers of pixels in runs compressible via run-length encoding or gradient encoding (Taaffe, col. 17, ln. 61–col. 18, ln. 26: teaches that either RLE or delta coding can be adaptively selected for different areas of an image based on the length of runs; While Taaffe teaches basing the selection of coding mode (RLE or Delta) on the length of runs, Schmidt, col. 9, ll. 45–51: teaches the longest run of pixels can be considered when determining whether it would be efficient to use RLE or not; see also Laney, col. 10, ll. 27–49: teaches a length of run variable that is used to make a compression decision about whether to code a string of pixels in run-length mode or absolute mode under the rationale that one or the other mode is more efficient and teaches that under a similar rationale one could consider whether delta coding would be more efficient).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Schmidt, Taaffe, and Laney teaches or suggests the method of claim 2, comprising sending a transmission over a network (Taaffe, col. 19, ll. 5–10: teaches “image data transmission”), the transmission including the encoded image and an indicator bit, the indicator bit indicating an encoding scheme utilized to encode the encoded image, the encoding scheme indicatable by the indicator bit including run-length encoding and gradient encoding (Taaffe, col. 13, ln. 58: teaches the control byte having a value of 00 indicates RLE; Taaffe, col. 14, ln. 43: teaches a control byte having 01 indicates another type of RLE; Taaffe, col. 15, ln. 25: teaches a control byte having 10 indicates a type of delta coding; see also Laney, col. 10, ll. 27–49: teaches a length of run variable that is used to make a compression decision about whether to code a string of pixels in run-length mode or absolute mode under the rationale that one or the other mode is more efficient and teaches that under a similar rationale one could consider whether delta coding would be more efficient).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Schmidt, Taaffe, and Laney teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the determining the highest number of: the number of pixels in the run compressible via run-length encoding, and the number of pixels in the run compressible via gradient encoding comprises: determining the number of pixels in the run compressible via run-length encoding; determining the number of pixels in the run compressible via gradient encoding; and determining the highest number of: the number of pixels in the run compressible via run-length encoding, and the number of pixels in the run compressible via gradient encoding (Taaffe, col. 17, ln. 61–col. 18, ln. 26: teaches that either RLE or delta coding can be adaptively selected for different areas of an image based on the length of runs; While Taaffe teaches basing the selection of coding mode (RLE or Delta) on the length of runs, Schmidt, col. 9, ll. 45–51: teaches the longest run of pixels can be considered when determining whether it would be efficient to use RLE or not; see also Laney, col. 10, ll. 27–49: teaches a length of run variable that is used to make a compression decision about whether to code a string of pixels in run-length mode or absolute mode under the rationale that one or the other mode is more efficient and teaches that under a similar rationale one could consider whether delta coding would be more efficient).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Schmidt, Taaffe, and Laney teaches or suggests the method of claim 4, wherein the determining the number of pixels in the run compressible via run-length encoding comprises: determining a number of pixels in a sequence having a same pixel value; and determining the number of pixels in the run compressible via run-length encoding at least partially based on the determined number of pixels in the sequence having the same pixel value (Taaffe, col. 18, ln. 14: teaches the run means “a run of sames”; see also Laney, col. 10, ll. 27–49: teaches a length of run variable that is used to make a compression decision about whether to code a string of pixels in run-length mode or absolute mode under the rationale that one or the other mode is more efficient and teaches that under a similar rationale one could consider whether delta coding would be more efficient).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Schmidt, Taaffe, and Laney teaches or suggests the method of claim 4, wherein the determining the number of pixels in the run compressible via gradient encoding comprises: determining a number of pixels in a sequence where a difference between adjacent pixel values is the same (Taaffe, col. 18, Table: teaches for the delta coding modes that a certain number of “sames” can indicating delta coding; Taaffe, col. 15, ll. 24–31: teaches that for delta coding, there are values that can be the same and also differences that can be the same); and determining the number of pixels in the run compressible via gradient encoding at least partially based on the determined number of pixels in the sequence where the difference between adjacent pixel values in the sequence is the same (Taaffe, col. 15, ll. 24–31: teaches that for delta coding, there are values that can be the same and also differences that can be the same; Examiner notes the claimed features are more of a characteristic of the data (unpatentable) than characteristics of the method or apparatus; see also Laney, col. 10, ll. 27–49: teaches a length of run variable that is used to make a compression decision about whether to code a string of pixels in run-length mode or absolute mode under the rationale that one or the other mode is more efficient and teaches that under a similar rationale one could consider whether delta coding would be more efficient).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Schmidt, Taaffe, and Laney teaches or suggests the method of claim 6, comprising, setting the determined number of pixels where the difference between adjacent pixel values is the same to zero in response to a determination that the determined number of pixels where the difference between adjacent pixel values is the same is less than a first predetermined threshold (Examiner notes this is just a data manipulation with no stated purpose or effect and is thus interpreted as extra-solution activity; Examiner interprets this as saying there is no run-length for RLE when the run of repeating values is below a threshold such that the chunk is coded using delta coding rather than RLE; Taaffe, col. 18, Table: teaches for the delta coding modes that a certain number of “sames” under a threshold indicates delta coding; Schmidt, col. 9, ll. 45–51: teaches the longest run of pixels can be considered when determining whether it would be efficient to use RLE or not and explains short runs are not efficient to code using RLE; see also Laney, col. 10, ll. 27–49: teaches a length of run variable that is used to make a compression decision about whether to code a string of pixels in run-length mode or absolute mode under the rationale that one or the other mode is more efficient and teaches that under a similar rationale one could consider whether delta coding would be more efficient).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Schmidt, Taaffe, and Laney teaches or suggests the method of claim 6, comprising, setting the determined number of pixels where the difference between adjacent pixel values is the same to zero in response to a determination that the difference between adjacent pixel values exceed a second predetermined threshold (Examiner notes this is just a data manipulation with no stated purpose or effect and is thus interpreted as extra-solution activity; Examiner interprets this as saying there is no delta coding when the run of repeating values is below a threshold such that the chunk is coded using another type of coding rather than delta coding; Taaffe, col. 18, Table: teaches for the delta coding modes that a certain number of “sames” over a threshold indicates delta coding, but that under a threshold indicates not using delta coding but rather another type of coding; see also Laney, col. 10, ll. 27–49: teaches a length of run variable that is used to make a compression decision about whether to code a string of pixels in run-length mode or absolute mode under the rationale that one or the other mode is more efficient and teaches that under a similar rationale one could consider whether delta coding would be more efficient).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Schmidt, Taaffe, and Laney teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the selectively encoding at least some pixels of the image via the one of run-length encoding or gradient encoding corresponding to the determined highest number comprises: selectively encoding a remaining portion of the image via one or more of run-length encoding or gradient encoding (Taaffe, col. 17, ln. 61–col. 18, ln. 26: teaches that either RLE or delta coding can be adaptively selected for different areas of an image based on the length of runs; see also Laney, col. 10, ll. 27–49: teaches a length of run variable that is used to make a compression decision about whether to code a string of pixels in run-length mode or absolute mode under the rationale that one or the other mode is more efficient and teaches that under a similar rationale one could consider whether delta coding would be more efficient).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Schmidt, Taaffe, and Laney teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, setting a value of an indicator bit of a transmission including an encoded portion of the image, the value of the indicator bit to indicate an encoding scheme utilized to encode the encoded portion of the image (Taaffe, col. 13, ln. 58: teaches the control byte having a value of 00 indicates RLE; Taaffe, col. 14, ln. 43: teaches a control byte having 01 indicates another type of RLE; Taaffe, col. 15, ln. 25: teaches a control byte having 10 indicates a type of delta coding; see also Laney, col. 10, ll. 27–49: teaches a length of run variable that is used to make a compression decision about whether to code a string of pixels in run-length mode or absolute mode under the rationale that one or the other mode is more efficient and teaches that under a similar rationale one could consider whether delta coding would be more efficient).
Claim 11 lists the same elements as claim 1, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 12 lists the same elements as claim 2, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 2 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 13 lists the same elements as claim 4, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 4 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 14 lists the same elements as claim 5, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 5 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 15 lists the same elements as claim 6, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 6 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 16 lists the same elements as claim 7, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 7 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 17 lists the same elements as claim 7, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 7 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 18 lists essentially the same elements as claim 1, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 19 lists essentially the same elements as claim 4, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 4 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 20 lists essentially the same elements as claim 5, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 5 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 21 lists essentially the same elements as claim 4, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 4 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 22 lists essentially the same elements as claim 6, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 6 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 23 lists essentially the same elements as claim 2, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 2 applies to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Schmidt, Taaffe, and Laney teaches or suggests the apparatus of claim 18, comprising a network equipment to send the image to a network (Taaffe, Fig. 1a and 1b: teach image LAN controller and networked workstations; see also Taaffe, col. 19, ll. 5–10: teaches image data transmission over a network; see also Taaffe, col. 4, ll. 53–66), the image comprising a portion of image data encoded via run-length encoding and a portion of image data encoded via gradient encoding (Taaffe, col. 17, ln. 61–col. 18, ln. 26: teaches that either RLE or delta coding can be adaptively selected for different areas of an image based on the length of runs; see also Laney, col. 10, ll. 27–49: teaches a length of run variable that is used to make a compression decision about whether to code a string of pixels in run-length mode or absolute mode under the rationale that one or the other mode is more efficient and teaches that under a similar rationale one could consider whether delta coding would be more efficient).
Claim 25 lists essentially the same elements as claim 3, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 3 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 26 lists essentially the same elements as claim 3. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 3 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 27 lists essentially the same elements as claim 3. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 3 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 28 lists essentially the same elements as claim 3. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 3 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 29 lists essentially the same elements as claim 3. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 3 applies to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Schmidt, Taaffe, and Laney teaches or suggests the method of claim 27, wherein the pixel value comprises a grayscale value or a color value (Taaffe, col. 3, ln. 16: teaches the images can be grayscale; see also Taaffe, col. 6, ln. 1: teaches black and white or color images; Schmidt, Abstract: teaches RLE is particularly suited to grayscale data; Laney, col. 5, ll. 5–25).
Claim 31 lists essentially the same elements as claim 3. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 3 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 32 lists essentially the same elements as claim 3. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 3 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 33 lists the same elements as claim 26, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 26 applies to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Schmidt, Taaffe, and Laney teaches or suggests the apparatus of claim 33, comprising: run-length decoding circuitry to decode encoded image data using run-length decoding; and gradient decoding circuitry to decode encoded image data using gradient decoding (Examiner notes signal processing is accomplished through circuitry, including processors; Taaffe, col. 11, ll. 42–46: teaches the processor passing images from an image archive to a workstation is performing the described adaptive compression).
Claim 35 lists the same elements as claim 31, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 31 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 38 lists the same elements as claim 29, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 29 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 39 lists the same elements as claim 30, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 30 applies to the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ackerman (US 2016/0094243 A1) teaches delta encoding compression is good when input values differ by a constant amount or a variable amount and that the delta string can be further compressed (e.g. ¶¶ 0064–0065) and further teaches selecting a compression method from a group comprising RLE and delta encoding (claim 4).
Kundu (US 2013/0004090 A1) teaches run length encoding pixel deltas (¶ 0158).
Ramamurthy (US 2012/0150877 A1) teaches determining whether the number of runs is much greater than a number of distinct values to determine whether to use RLE or delta coding (¶ 0045).
Chen (US 2004/0017950 A1) teaches that delta coding is better when the difference between adjacent data is close (e.g. ¶ 0012).
Millett (US 5,701,459) teaches counting the number of runs to choose between RLE and delta encoding wherein RLE is good for long runs and delta coding is best for deltas much smaller than raw values (col. 11, ll. 9–20; col. 12, ll. 3–6).
Demos (US 2006/0071825 A1) teaches RLE and delta encoding are “extremely simple” variable length codes used in image compression (¶ 0014).
Petkov (US 2019/0310769 A1) teaches using delta coding before RLE to increase the number of repeating values to increase efficiency (¶ 0774).
Lu (US 2018/0295255 A1) teaches selecting between run-length encoding (RLE) and Delta Row Compression (DRC) as two lossless compression methods (¶ 0044).
Hickey (US 2007/0274382 A1) teaches counting a number of run length pixels (e.g. claim 1).
Lindquist (US 2022/0413864 A1) states, “Run-length encoding is a form of data compression….” (¶ 0080).
Guyon (US 2021/0118186 A1) explains, “Compression, a lossy form of ‘encoding,’….” (¶ 0002).
Mogahad et al., “Development of a Lossless Data Compression Algorithm for Multichannel Environmental Monitoring Systems,” 14th International Scientific-Technical Conference APEIE – 44894 (2018). The Abstract explains “three famous compression methods [] are: Delta encoding, Run-length encoding, and Huffman encoding.”
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
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 571-273-8933.
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.
/MICHAEL J HESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights