DETAILED ACTION
Contents
I. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 4
II. Priority 4
III. Pertinent Prosecution History 5
IV. Reissue Requirements 5
V. Claim Status 7
VI. Information Disclosure Statement 7
VII. Claim Objections 7
VIII. Election/Restrictions 8
IX. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 11
A. Original Patent Requirement 11
X. Double Patenting 14
A. U.S. Patent No. 9,743,086 15
(1) Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, respectively, (“‘086 ODP Claim”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,743,086 (“086 Patent”) in view of “Test Model under Construction,” Draft 000, Document JCTVC-B205, Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of lTU-T SG16 WP3 and 1SO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, 2nd Meeting: Geneva, CH, 21-28 July, 2010 (“JCTVC-B205”) and Lu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0159165) (“Lu”). 15
XI. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103 21
A. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12, 13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0159165) (“Lu”) in view of “Test Model under Construction,” Draft 000, Document JCTVC-B205, Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of lTU-T SG16 WP3 and 1SO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, 2nd Meeting: Geneva, CH, 21-28 July, 2010 (“JCTVC-B205”) and Smith et al., “A Study Guide for Digital Processing,” Second Edition, Scientific Publishers (1997) (“Smith”). 22
B. Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0159165) (“Lu”) in view of “Test Model under Construction,” Draft 000, Document JCTVC-B205, Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of lTU-T SG16 WP3 and 1SO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, 2nd Meeting: Geneva, CH, 21-28 July, 2010 (“JCTVC-B205”) and Smith et al., “A Study Guide for Digital Processing,” Second Edition, Scientific Publishers (1997) (“Smith”) as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12, 13 and 15-20 above, and in further view of Chang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0237236)(“Chang”). 44
C. Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0159165) (“Lu”) in view of “Test Model under Construction,” Draft 000, Document JCTVC-B205, Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of lTU-T SG16 WP3 and 1SO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, 2nd Meeting: Geneva, CH, 21-28 July, 2010 (“JCTVC-B205”) and Smith et al., “A Study Guide for Digital Processing,” Second Edition, Scientific Publishers (1997) (“Smith”) as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12, 13 and 15-20 above, and in further view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,326,068)(“Zhang”). 45
XII. Conclusion 47
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Priority
Applicant filed the instant reissue application 18/530,771 (“‘771 Reissue Application”) on 06 December 2023 for U.S. Application No. 16/502,135 (“‘135 Application”), filed 03 July 2019, now U.S. Patent No. 11,196,995 (“‘995 Patent”), issued 07 December 2021, which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 15/656,048 (“‘048 Application”), filed 21 July 2017, now U.S. Patent No. 10,368,070 (“‘070 Patent”), issued 30 July 2019, which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 14/868,916 (“‘916 Application”) filed on 29 September 2015, now U.S. Patent No. 9,743,086 (“‘086 Patent”), issued 22 August 2017, which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 14/474,918 (“‘918 Application”) filed on 02 September 2014, now U.S. Patent No. 9,185,367 (“’367 Patent”), which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 13/881,927 (“‘927 Application”), now U.S. Patent No. 8,889,197 (“197 Patent”) filed as a 371 of International Application No. PCT/JP/073657 on 14 October 2011, now U.S. Patent No. 8,891,887 (“’887 Patent”). The ‘927 Application claims foreign priority to Japanese Application 2010-275116 (“‘116 JP Application”) filed on 09 December 2010, and Japanese Application 2011-049992 (“‘992 JP Application”) filed on 08 March 2011.
Thus, the Examiner concludes that for examination purposes the instant ‘771 Reissue Application has an effective filing date of 14 October 2011 and a foreign priority date of 09 December 2010.
Pertinent Prosecution History
As set forth supra, Applicant filed the application for the instant ‘771 Reissue Application on 06 December 2023. The Examiner finds that the instant ‘771 Reissue Application included a preliminary amendment (“Dec 2023 Preliminary Amendment”) to the claims (“Dec 2023 Claim Amendment”).
Reissue Requirements
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the ‘995 Patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, post-grant proceedings and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
The Examiner notes that Amendment practice for Reissue Applications is NOT the same as for non-provisional applications. See MPEP §§ 1413 and 1453. Reissue application amendments must comply with 37 CFR 1.173, while non-provisional application amendments must comply with 37 CFR 1.121. Particularly,
Manner of making amendments under 37 CFR 1.173:
All markings (underlining and bracketing) are made relative to the original patent text, 37 CFR 1.173(g) (and not relative to the prior amendment).
For amendments to the abstract, specification and claims, the deleted matter must be enclosed in brackets, and the added matter must be underlined. See 37 CFR 1.173(d).
For amendments to the drawings, any changes to a patent drawing must be submitted as a replacement sheet of drawings which shall be an attachment to the amendment document. Any replacement sheet of drawings must be in compliance with § 1.84 and shall include all of the figures appearing on the original version of the sheet, even if only one figure is amended. Amended figures must be identified as "Amended," and any added figure must be identified as "New." In the event that a figure is canceled, the figure must be surrounded by brackets and identified as "Canceled." All changes to the drawing(s) shall be explained, in detail, beginning on a separate sheet accompanying the papers including the amendment to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.173(d)(3).
The Examiner further notes that all amendments to the instant ‘771 Reissue Application must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g).
Claim Status
The Examiner finds that the claim status in the instant ‘771 Reissue Application is as follows:
Claim(s) 1-19 (Original)
Claim(s) 20 (New)
Claim(s) 21 and 22 (New and Withdrawn)
Thus, the Examiner concludes that claims 1-22 are pending; and claims 21 and 22 are withdrawn in the instant ‘771 Reissue Application. Thus, claims 1- 20 are examined (“Examined Claims”).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statements filed: 06 December 2023 (Dec 2023 IDS”); 09 March 2024 (Mar 2024 IDS”); and 17 April 2024 (July 2023 IDS”) have been received and entered into the record. Since the Information Disclosure Statements comply with the provisions of MPEP § 609, the references cited therein have been considered by the Examiner. See attached form PTO-1449.
The Examiner finds that all of the Non-Patent Literature (NPL) and Foreign Documents (FOR) cited on the Dec 2023 IDS are filed in the various underlying Patent Applications of the instant ‘771 Reissue Application.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “… claim 10, wherein inversely…” should read – … claim 10, wherein the inversely … –.
Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Applicable rules and regulations:
CFR 1.176 states (in pertinent parts):
(b) Restriction between subject matter of the original patent claims and previously unclaimed subject matter may be required (restriction involving only subject matter of the original patent claims will not be required). If restriction is required, the subject matter of the original patent claims will be held to be constructively elected unless a disclaimer of all the patent claims is filed in the reissue application, which disclaimer cannot be withdrawn by applicant.
[42 FR 5595, Jan. 28, 1977; revised, 65 FR 54604, Sept. 8, 2000, effective Nov. 7, 2000].
MPEP § 1450 states (in pertinent parts):
37 CFR 1.176(b) permits the examiner to require restriction in a reissue application between claims newly added in a reissue application and the original patent claims, where the added claims are directed to an invention which is separate and distinct from the invention(s) defined by the original patent claims. The criteria for making a restriction requirement in a reissue application between the newly added claims and the original claims are the same as that applied in a non-reissue application. See MPEP §§ 806 through 806.05(i). The authority to make a "restriction" requirement under 37 CFR 1.176(b) extends to and includes the authority to make an election of species.
Where a restriction requirement is made by the examiner, the original patent claims will be held to be constructively elected (except for the limited situation where a disclaimer is filed as discussed in the next paragraph). Thus, the examiner will issue an Office action in the reissue application (1) providing notification of the restriction requirement, (2) holding the added claims to be constructively non-elected and withdrawn from consideration, (3) treating the original patent claims on the merits, and (4) informing applicant that if the original claims are found allowable, and a divisional application has been filed for the non-elected claims, further action in the application will be suspended, pending resolution of the divisional application.
If a disclaimer of all the original patent claims is filed in the reissue application containing newly added claims that are separate and distinct from the original patent claims, only the newly added claims will be present for examination. In this situation, the examiner's Office action will treat the newly added claims in the reissue application on the merits. The disclaimer of all the original patent claims must be filed in the reissue application before the issuance of the examiner's Office action containing the restriction requirement, in order for the newly added claims to be treated on the merits. Once the examiner has issued the Office action providing notification of the restriction requirement and treating the patent claims on the merits, it is too late to obtain an examination on the added claims in the reissue application by filing a disclaimer of all the original patent claims, If reissue applicant wishes to have the newly added claims be treated on the merits, a divisional reissue application must be filed to obtain examination of the added claims. Reissue applicants should carefully note that once a disclaimer of the patent claims is filed, it cannot be withdrawn. It does not matter whether the reissue application is still pending, or whether the reissue application has been abandoned or issued as a reissue patent. For all these situations 37 CFR 1.176(b) states that the disclaimer cannot be withdrawn; the disclaimer will be given effect. Note that cancellation of all the original patent claims in the reissue application will not be effective as an alternative to disclaiming all the original patent claims, and 37 CFR 1.176(b) will not be waived to permit the same. This is because the patent owner can subsequently file a reissue continuation presenting the original patent claims.
Restriction between multiple inventions recited in the newly added claims will be permitted provided the added claims are drawn to several separate and distinct inventions. In such a situation, the original patent claims would be examined in the first reissue application, and applicant is permitted to file a divisional reissue application for each of the several separate and distinct inventions identified in the examiner's restriction requirement.
A situation will sometimes arise where the examiner makes an election of species requirement between the species claimed in the original patent claims and a species of claims added in the reissue application. (The filing of a reissue application to only add species claims that require all the limitations of an issued generic claim would not meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 251 - see MPEP § 1402; however, this situation can occur where there is another change to the patent being made, which does correct a 35 U.S.C. 251 "error." ) In such a situation, if (1) the non-elected claims to the added species depend from (or otherwise include all limitations of) a generic claim which embraces all species claims, and (2) the generic claim is found allowable, then the non- elected claims of the added species must be rejoined with the elected claims of the original patent. See MPEP § 821.04(a).
MPEP 1450.
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species: Independent Invention I – (i.e., claims 1-20 ); Independent Invention II - (i.e., claim 21); and Independent Invention III (i.e., claim 22). The species are independent or distinct because the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species (i.e., Independent Invention I is to decoding and Independent Inventions II and III are to encoding). In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Since no disclaimer of all the original patent claims 1-12 has been filed before the issuance of this Office action in the instant reissue application, the original patent claims 1-19 and, new claim 20, will be held to be constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits, and the newly added claims 21 and 22 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected inventions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
Original Patent Requirement
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being in violation of the original patent requirement.
Section 251 requires that reissue is for “the invention disclosed in the original patent.” In order to satisfy the original patent requirement, “[i]t must appear from the face of the instrument that what is covered by the reissue was intended to have been covered and secured by the original.” U.S. Indus. Chems., Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Chems. Corp., 315 U.S. 668, 676 (1942). Furthermore, “it is not enough that an invention might have been claimed in the original patent because it was suggested or indicated in the specification.” Id. In other words, the original patent “must clearly and unequivocally disclose the newly claimed invention as a separate invention.” Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma Inc., 771 F.3d 1354, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
In the instant case, it does not appear from the face of the original patent that Applicant intended to cover an apparatus, method or CRM for determining the probability of whether a particular lesion belongs to a positive or negative classification without:
a buffer for receiving the encoded image data; and
inversely quantiz[ing] the quantized transform coefficient data using a 16x16 quantization matrix to generate predicted error data;
combin[ing] the predicted error data with a predicted image to generate decoded image data
The Technical Problem makes clear that the invention is drawn to an apparatus, method or CRM capable of suppressing an increase in the amount of codes due to an increase in the number of quantization matrices. (‘995 Patent at c.2, ll.38-42; c.4, ll.13-16).
The Examiner finds the problem is solved by a particular system, method and CRM comprising an embodiment that includes
a buffer for receiving encoded image data, and a processor to execute instructions that cause the processor to: decode the encoded image data from the buffer to generate quantized transform coefficient data; inversely quantize the quantized transform coefficient data using a 16×16 quantization matrix to generate predicted error data, the 16×16 quantization matrix includes a duplicate of at least one of two elements adjacent to each other from an 8×8 quantization matrix; and combine the predicted error data with a predicted image to generate decoded image data.
(‘995 Patent at Abstract; c.16, l.10; also see c.16, ll.10-50; see Figure 8). The claims as filed and during prosecution were always drawn to an apparatus, method and CRM comprising the operation of multiple steps including steps (1)-(3) above. (Id.; emphasis added; also see original claims 1, 10 and 19 filed 03 July 2019 in the ‘135 Application (“July 2019 ‘135 Application Claims”).
This situation is also somewhat analogous to the recent Federal Circuit decision in Forum US, Inc. v. Flow Valve, LLC, 926 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2019). In Forum US, the original patent claims were drawn to a workpiece having a body member and a plurality of arbors (arbors circled):
PNG
media_image1.png
267
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Forum US, 926 F.3d at 1348-49. In reissue, patentee broadened the claims to remove the requirement as to arbors. Id. at 1349. The Federal Circuit determined that the new claims did not comply with the original patent requirement of section 251 because the face of the patent did not disclose any arbor-less embodiment, and the abstract, summary of invention, and all disclosed embodiments including arbors. Id. at 1352. The Court concluded that the specification did not clearly and unequivocally disclose an embodiment without arbors, thus the original patent requirement was violated by broadening the claims to no longer require arbors. (Id.) Similarly, the patent here does not clearly and unequivocally disclose any embodiment that includes an apparatus, virtual system and method comprising performing steps, including: (1) receiving the encoded image data WITHOUT utilizing a buffer to receive the encoded image data; and (2) inversely quantiz[ing] the quantized transform coefficient data using a 16x16 quantization matrix to generate transform coefficient data WITHOUT the generated transform coefficient data being predicted error data; and (3) generating decoded image data WITHOUT combining the generated predicted error data with a predicted image.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
U.S. Patent No. 9,743,086
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, respectively, (“‘086 ODP Claim”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,743,086 (“086 Patent”) in view of “Test Model under Construction,” Draft 000, Document JCTVC-B205, Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of lTU-T SG16 WP3 and 1SO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, 2nd Meeting: Geneva, CH, 21-28 July, 2010 (“JCTVC-B205”) and Lu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0159165) (“Lu”).
Claim of ‘771 Reissue Application Claim of ‘086 Patent
Pending Claim 20:
20. An image processing device comprising:
decoder circuitry configured to
receive encoded image data of an image;
decode the encoded image data to generate quantized transform coefficient data;
inversely quantize the quantized transform coefficient data using a 16x 16 quantization matrix to generate transform coefficient data, the 16x 16 quantization matrix includes a duplicate of at least one of two elements adjacent to each other from an 8 x8 quantization matrix; and
generate from the transform coefficient data decoded image data of the image.
Patent Claim 1:
1. An image processing device comprising:
decoder circuitry configured to:
receive a matrix type flag and encoded data of image data, the matrix type flag specifying whether to use a user-defined 32x32 quantization matrix;
decode the encoded data of image data to generate quantized transform coefficient data for a 32x32 transform unit for the image data; and
when the matrix type flag specifies that the user-defined 32x32 quantization matrix is to be used:
inversely quantize the quantized transform coefficient data for the 32x32 transform unit for the image data using the user-defined 32x32 quantization matrix, the user-defined 32x32 quantization matrix being set in dependence on the matrix type flag and a value of the another flag different from the matrix type flag by the decoder circuitry performing a nearest neighboring process wherein elements of the user-defined 32x32 quantization matrix are duplicated from an 8x8 quantization matrix such that each element of the 8/8 quantization matrix is duplicated to form a set of sixteen duplicated elements for the user-defined 32x32 quantization matrix, with the sixteen duplicated elements in each respective set being located in the user-defined 32/32 quantization matrix in the following manner
a first duplicated element of the sixteen duplicated elements is positioned at a first location in the user-defined 32x32 matrix;
a second duplicated element of the sixteen duplicated elements is positioned adjacent to the first duplicated element and to the right of the first duplicated element;
a third duplicated element of the sixteen duplicated elements is positioned adjacent to the first duplicated element and below the first duplicated element;
a fourth duplicated element of the sixteen duplicated elements is positioned adjacent to the second duplicated element and below the second duplicated element and adjacent to the third duplicated element and to the right of the third duplicated element;
a fifth duplicated element of the sixteen duplicated elements is positioned adjacent to the second duplicated element and to the right of the second duplicated element;
a sixth duplicated element of the sixteen duplicated elements is positioned adjacent to the fourth duplicated element and to the right of the fourth duplicated element;
a seventh duplicated element of the sixteen duplicated elements is positioned adjacent to the third duplicated element and below the third duplicated element;
an eighth duplicated element of the sixteen duplicated elements is positioned adjacent to the fourth duplicated element and below the fourth duplicated element;
a ninth duplicated element of the sixteen duplicated elements is positioned adjacent to the sixth duplicated element and below the sixth duplicated element and adjacent to the eighth duplicated element and to the right of the eighth duplicated element;
a tenth duplicated element of the sixteen duplicated elements is positioned adjacent to the fifth duplicated element and to the right of the fifth duplicated element;
an eleventh duplicated element of the sixteen duplicated elements is positioned adjacent to the sixth duplicated element and to the right of the sixth duplicated element;
a twelfth duplicated element of the sixteen duplicated elements is positioned adjacent to the ninth duplicated element and to the right of the ninth duplicated element;
a thirteenth duplicated element of the sixteen duplicated elements is positioned adjacent to the seventh duplicated element and below the seventh duplicated element;
a fourteenth duplicated element of the sixteen duplicated elements is positioned adjacent to the eighth duplicated element and below the eighth duplicated element;
a fifteenth duplicated element of the sixteen duplicated elements is positioned adjacent to the ninth duplicated element and below the ninth duplicated element; and
a sixteenth duplicated element of the sixteen duplicated elements is positioned adjacent to the twelfth duplicated element and below the twelfth duplicated element and adjacent to the fifteenth duplicated element and to the right of the fifteenth duplicated element;
wherein adjacent sets correspond with adjacent elements of the 8x8 matrix.
With respect to the limitations of claim 20, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the pending claim 20 is identical or similar and/or covered by the ‘086 ODP Claim. The Examiner finds that claim 20 of the ‘771 Reissue Application has essentially the same claim requirements as the ‘086 ODP Claim. In addition, where claim 20 of the ‘771 Reissue Application and the ‘086 ODP Claim are not exactly the same, the Examiner finds that claim 20 of the ‘771 Reissue Application would be obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the art based on engineering expediency of the ‘086 ODP Claim.
The Examiner finds that the ‘086 ODP Claim discloses the limitations, as set forth above, except for specifically calling for setting a 16x16 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix instead of setting an 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix; and generating decoded image data of the image from the transform coefficient data.
However, JCTVC-B205 teaches and suggests setting a 16x16 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix. JCTVC-B205, for example, teaches the previous “AVC” standard being limited to 4x4 and 8x8 quantization block transform matrices. (JCTVC-B205 at p.94-95; p.136, § 10.1). JCTVC-B205 further teaches that HD processing can now include, not only 4x4 and 8x8 quantization block transform matrices, but can now include 16x16, 32x32 and 64x64 quantization block transform matrices. (Id. at p.136, § 10.1). JCTVC-B205 further teaches that the utilization of large transforms provides better energy consumption and reduced quantization error, resulting in smoother data. (Id.)
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate specifically setting a 16x16 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix instead of setting an 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix as described in JCTVC-B205 in the image processing system of the ‘086 ODP Claim.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate specifically setting a 16x16 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix instead of setting an 32x32 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix, since it provides a mechanism of utilizing large transforms with better energy consumption and reduced quantization error characteristics. (Id.) In other words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HD processing that provides improved coding efficiency of high resolution video, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method. (Id.)
Furthermore, the Examiner finds that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (i.e., “Obvious to try”), would lead to anticipated success. (See MPEP § 2143.I.E). That is, since the ‘086 ODP Claim explicitly teaches the utilization of transmitting small size quantization transforms matrices of 8x8 and the deriving of larger quantization transforms matrices of 32x32 on the decoding end to utilize the quantization transform block that will be especially effective; and JCTVC-B205 explicitly teaches the utilization of 16x16 quantization block transform matrices to provide better energy consumption and reduced quantization error, resulting in smoother data, the ‘086 ODP Claim and JCTVC-B205 teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions (i.e., transmit a small 8x8 quantization block transform matrix and derive a larger 16x16 quantization block transform therefrom) with a reasonable expectation of success (i.e., Obvious to try).
Similarly, Lu teaches and suggests generating decoded image data of the image from the transform coefficient data. The Examiner finds that Lu, for example, teaches an image processing system/method being downloaded/uploaded to a computer system Cs and the computer system Cs performing the method. (Lu at ¶ 0114). In addition, the Examiner finds that Lu teaches the system and method combining the predicted error data with a predicted image to generate decoded image data. (Id. at ¶ 0084; see Figures 4, 14).
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate generating decoded image data of the image from the transform coefficient data as described in Lu in the image processing system of the ‘086 ODP Claim and JCTVC-B205.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate generating decoded image data of the image from the transform coefficient data, since it provides a mechanism of compensate for motion in moving pictures. (Id. at ¶¶ 0001, 0008, 0014).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12, 13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0159165) (“Lu”) in view of “Test Model under Construction,” Draft 000, Document JCTVC-B205, Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of lTU-T SG16 WP3 and 1SO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, 2nd Meeting: Geneva, CH, 21-28 July, 2010 (“JCTVC-B205”) and Smith et al., “A Study Guide for Digital Processing,” Second Edition, Scientific Publishers (1997) (“Smith”).
With respect to the limitations of claim 1, and
[1] [a]n image processing device comprising:
[10] [[a]n image processing method comprising:
[19] [a] non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which when executed cause a computer to perform a method, the method comprising:
In this regard,, the Examiner finds that Lu discloses an image processing system and method. (Lu at Title; ¶¶ 0019, 0081, 0098-0099, 0107-0112; see Figures 4, 14, 16). The Examiner finds that the image processing system of Lu can be implemented as a computer product which may be a storage medium including instructions which can be used to program a computer to perform the image processing process. (Id. at ¶¶ 0115-0119; see Figures 17A-17C).
[1a] a buffer for receiving encoded image data, and
[11a, 19a] buffering in a buffer encoded image data,
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Lu discloses an image processing system and method having as input a Str having encoded image data. (Id. at ¶¶ 0019, 0108-0110; see Figures 4, 14). The Examiner finds the Str encoded data would inherently be placed into a memory buffer before processing would occur.
[1b] a processor to execute instructions that cause the processor to:
decode encoded data of image data to generate quantized transform coefficient data; and
[10b] decoding, by a decoder, encoded data of image data to generate quantized transform coefficient data
[19b] decoding, by a decoder, encoded data of image data to generate quantized transform coefficient data
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Lu discloses the image processing system/method being downloaded/uploaded to a computer system Cs and the computer system Cs performing the method. (Lu at ¶ 0114). In addition, the Examiner finds that Lu discloses a decoding apparatus (Lu at ¶¶ 0055, 0108; see Figures 4, 14) comprising a variable length decoding unit VLD1 that decodes the coded Str to attain weighting matrices Wmatrix. (Id. at ¶¶ 0110-0111). The Examiner finds that it is known in the art that variable length coding is lossless data compression. The Examiner finds that the output of the variable length decoding unit VLD1 would be the quantized transform coefficients data. (Id. at ¶ 0081).
[1c] [a processor to execute instructions that cause the processor to]:
inversely quantize the quantized transform coefficient data using a 16x16 quantization matrix to generate predicted error data, the 16x 16 quantization matrix includes a duplicate of at least one of two elements adjacent to each other from an 8x8 quantization matrix; and
[10c] inversely quantizing, by processing circuitry, the quantized transform coefficient data using a 16x16 quantization matrix to generate predicted error data, the 16x 16 quantization matrix includes duplicates of at least one of two elements adjacent to each other from an 8x8 quantization matrix; and
[19c] inversely quantizing the quantized transform coefficient data using a 16x16 quantization matrix to generate predicted error data, the 16x 16 quantization matrix includes duplicates of at least one of two elements adjacent to each other from an 8x8 quantization matrix; and
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Lu discloses the image processing system/method being downloaded/uploaded to a computer system Cs and the computer system Cs performing the method. (Lu at ¶ 0114). In addition, the Examiner finds that Lu discloses the utilization of an inverse quantization unit IQ1 within the decoding apparatus that performs inverse quantization on the using the weighted quantization matrix. (Lu at ¶¶ 0106, 0107, 0110). The Examiner finds that Lu discloses encoding and decoding of the quantization matrix being limited to fixed size transform blocks and the need to be able to utilize multiple size blocks to meet the demand for high resolution images (HDTV). (Id. at ¶¶ 0019, 0021-0024). The Examiner finds that Lu discloses an embodiment in which the weighting matrices are determined on a per-stream or-picture basis in which an 8x8 weighting matrix W8 is derived from a 4x4 weighting matrix W4. (Id. at ¶¶ 0099-0100, 0104, 0106, 0112; see Figure 16). The Examiner finds that Lu discloses this embodiment as a mechanism to utilize the quantization transform block that will be especially effective. (Id. at ¶¶ 0099, 0106). In addition, the Examiner finds that Lu discloses the 8x8 weighting matrix W8 being utilized for generating prediction error data. (Id. at ¶¶ 0082-0083; see Figures 4, 14).
While Lu discloses the limitations as set forth above except for setting a 16x16 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix instead of setting an 8x8 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 4x4 transform quantization matrix; and the setting (i.e., the upsampling and/or interpolation) of the 16x16 transform quantization matrix being accomplished by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in the smaller 8x8 quantization matrix.
However, JCTVC-B205 teaches and suggests setting a 16x16 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix. JCTVC-B205, for example, teaches the previous “AVC” standard being limited to 4x4 and 8x8 quantization block transform matrices. (JCTVC-B205 at p.94-95; p.136, § 10.1). JCTVC-B205 further teaches that HD processing can now include, not only 4x4 and 8x8 quantization block transform matrices, but can now include 16x16, 32x32 and 64x64 quantization block transform matrices. (Id. at p.136, § 10.1). JCTVC-B205 further teaches that the utilization of large transforms provides better energy consumption and reduced quantization error, resulting in smoother data. (Id.)
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate specifically setting a 16x16 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix instead of setting an 8x8 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 4x4 transform quantization matrix as described in JCTVC-B205 in the image processing system of Lu.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate specifically setting a 16x16 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix instead of setting an 8x8 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 4x4 transform quantization matrix, since it provides a mechanism of utilizing large transforms with better energy consumption and reduced quantization error characteristics. (Id.) In other words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HD processing that provides improved coding efficiency of high resolution video, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method. (Id.)
Furthermore, the Examiner finds that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (i.e., “Obvious to try”), would lead to anticipated success. (See MPEP § 2143.I.E). That is, since Lu explicitly teaches the utilization of transmitting small size quantization transforms matrices of 4x4 and the deriving of larger quantization transforms matrices of 8x8 on the decoding end to utilize the quantization transform block that will be especially effective; and JCTVC-B205 explicitly teaches the utilization of 16x16 quantization block transform matrices to provide better energy consumption and reduced quantization error, resulting in smoother data, Lu and JCTVC-B205 teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions (i.e., transmit a small 8x8 quantization block transform matrix and derive a larger 16x16 quantization block transform therefrom) with a reasonable expectation of success (i.e., Obvious to try).
In addition, the Examiner finds that setting (i.e., the upsampling and/or interpolation) of the 16x16 transform quantization matrix being accomplished by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in the smaller 8x8 quantization matrix is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Smith, for example, specifically teaches conventional image processing interpolation methods to increase the size of an image, one of which being a “pixel replication or zero-order interpolation.” (Id. Smith at §§ 8.6 – 8.6.1). The Examiner finds that Smith teaches the pixels being replicated from an NxN image to a 2Nx2N to create the large interpolated image. (Id.). The Examiner finds that Smith teaches this procedure as being identical to upsampling by a factor of two. (Id.; emphasis at § 8.6.1, 2nd ¶). Thus, the Examiner concludes that zero-order interpolation or replication is equivalent to the predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements. (See example in § 8.6.1 at top of p.417 of Smith)
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate specifically setting a 16x16 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements as described in Smith in the image processing system of Lu and JCTVC-B205.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate specifically setting a 16x16 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, since it provides a mechanism to utilize the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an image processing data set. (Id. at § 8.6.1;). In other words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HD processing that decreases required complex processing, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method. (Id.)
In addition, this combination of references satisfies at least rationale C identified by the Supreme Court in KSR: "Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way." (See MPEP 2143.) The elements of the Graham factual inquiry for supporting a finding of obviousness based on this rationale are provided below:
(1) A finding that the prior art (Lu and JCTVC-B205) contained a “base” device (an image processing system) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” for including setting a 16x16 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1.
(2) A finding that the prior art (Smith) contained a "comparable" device (digital processing image enhancement system) that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention, i.e. the Smith pixel replication or zero-order interpolation performs a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 in order to carry out, in addition to the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, a new function of utilizing the most simplest and conventional method of increasing a digital image processing data set.
(3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique in the same way to the “base” device (the Lu and JCTVC-B205 image processing system) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, because Lu indicates that an operation in the decoder on the receiving end can be used to derive a larger quantization transform block from a smaller transmitted/received quantization transform block and Smith teaches a manner for improving this, the result would be predictable. In other words, the Smith implementation or providing of pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set to a larger digital image data set that satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 proves that the implementation is both successful and entirely predictable. In Lu and JCTVC-B205, the image processing system modified according to Smith would be capable of incorporating the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an image processing data set (i.e., pixel replication or zero-order interpolation) of the Smith digital processing image enhancement system including the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set to a larger digital image data set that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1, in addition to higher end interpolation techniques, as evidenced by the success in the Smith digital processing image enhancement system.
In that regard, the Examiner asserts the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. That is, the manner of enhancing a particular device (providing of pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set to a larger digital image data set that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1) was made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in Smith. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known “improvement” technique in the same manner to the prior art an image processing system of Lu and JCTVC-B205 and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely, one skilled in the art would have readily recognized that a pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set to a larger digital image data set that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 in the image processing system of Lu and JCTVC-B205 would positively provide a means to carry out, in addition to the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, a new function of utilizing the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an digital image processing data set, since such functionality is taught to be highly desirable by Smith, as set forth supra.
Thus, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a “base” device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that if the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, then using the technique would not have been obvious. (KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396). If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
[1d] [a processor to execute instructions that cause the processor to]:
combine the predicted error data with a predicted image to generate decoded image data.
[10d] combining, by the processing circuitry, the predicted error data with a predicted image to generate a decoded image data.
[19c] combining the predicted error data with a predicted image to generate decoded image data.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Lu discloses the image processing system/method being downloaded/uploaded to a computer system Cs and the computer system Cs performing the method. (Lu at ¶ 0114). In addition, the Examiner finds that Lu discloses the system and method combining the predicted error data with a predicted image to generate decoded image data. (Id. at ¶ 0084; see Figures 4, 14).
With respect to the limitations of claims 3 and 12, Lu, JCTVC-B205 and Smith teaches and/or renders obvious
[3] wherein the processor is configured to provide the decoded image data for storage in memory.
[12] further comprising providing the decoded image data for storage in memory.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Lu discloses the image processing system/method being downloaded/uploaded to a computer system Cs and the computer system Cs performing the method. (Lu at ¶ 0114). In addition, the Examiner finds that Lu discloses the system and method placing the decoded image into picture memory. (Id. at ¶¶ 0084-0085; see Figures 4, 14).
With respect to the limitations of claims 4 and 13, Lu, JCTVC-B205 and Smith teaches and/or renders obvious
[4] wherein the processor is configured to provide the decoded image data for display.
[13] further comprising providing the decoded image data for display.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Lu discloses the image processing system/method being downloaded/uploaded to a computer system Cs and the computer system Cs performing the method. (Lu at ¶ 0114). In addition, the Examiner finds that Lu discloses the system and method providing the decoded image for display. (Id. at ¶¶ 0022, 0128-0129, 0139-0141; see Figure 19).
With respect to the limitations of claims 6 and 15, Lu, JCTVC-B205 and Smith teaches and/or renders obvious
[6] wherein the processor is configured to store the 8x8 quantization matrix.
[15] further comprising storing the 8x8 quantization matrix.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Lu discloses the image processing system/method being downloaded/uploaded to a computer system Cs and the computer system Cs performing the method. (Lu at ¶ 0114). In addition, the Examiner finds that Lu discloses an embodiment in which the weighting matrices are determined on a per-stream or-picture basis in which an 8x8 weighting matrix W8 is derived from a 4x4 weighting matrix W4. (Id. at ¶¶ 0099-0100, 0104, 0106, 0112; see Figure 16). The Examiner finds that in order for larger quantization transform matrices (i.e., 16x16 or 32x32) to be derived, the smaller 4x4 or 8x8 transform block matrices must be stored in memory in the decoder/image processing system. Thus, the Examiner concludes that Lu sufficiently satisfies circuitry being configured to store the 8x8 quantization matrix.
To the degree a reviewing body finds that it is not inherent that Lu teaches “the processor is configured to store the 8x8 quantization matrix” (emphasis added), the following alternative to this feature is provided as set forth below:
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate a decoder or an image processing system comprising some type of memory storing an 8x8 quantization matrix in the image processing system of Lu, JCTVC-B205 and Smith.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate a decoder or an image processing system comprising some type of memory storing an 8x8 quantization matrix, since it provides a mechanism to dynamically access the transmitted/received smaller quantization transforms for further processing. In other words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HD processing that decreases the necessity to continually download data for processing, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method.
With respect to the limitations of claims 7-9 and 16-18, Lu, JCTVC-B205 and Smith teaches and/or renders obvious
[7] wherein the processor is configured to generate the 16x 16 quantization matrix by duplicating one of a first element and a second element adjacent to each other in the 8x8 quantization matrix as an element between the first element and the second element in the 16x16 quantization matrix;
[16] further comprising generating the 16x 16 quantization matrix by duplicating one of a first element and a second element adjacent to each other in the 8 x8 quantization matrix as an element between the first element and the second element in the 16x 16 quantization matrix;
[9] wherein the processor is configured to set the 16x 16 quantization matrix.
[18] further comprising setting, by the processing circuity, the 16x 16 quantization matrix;
[8] wherein the processor is configured to inversely quantize the quantized transform coefficient data using the 16x16 quantization matrix (QMI) set by performing a nearest neighboring process on the elements in the 8x8 quantization matrix (QM2):
[17] wherein inversely quantizing includes inversely quantizing, by the processing circuitry, the quantized transform coefficient data using the 16x16 quantization matrix (QM1) set by performing the nearest neighboring process on the elements in the 8x8 quantization matrix (QM2):
PNG
media_image2.png
418
556
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As presented supra, the Examiner finds it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate “circuitry configured to:... inversely quantize the quantized transform coefficient data for the image data using a 16x16 quantization matrix, the 16x16 quantization matrix set by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in an 8x8 quantization matrix” as described by Lu, JCTVC-B205 and Smith (See § XI.A.(1).c, supra).
With respect to the matrices of QM1 and QM2 above, the Examiner finds that Smith, for example, specifically teaches conventional image processing interpolation methods to increase the size of an image, one of which being a “pixel replication or zero-order interpolation.” (Id. Smith at §§ 8.6 – 8.6.1). The Examiner finds that Smith teaches the pixels being replicated from an NxN image to a 2Nx2N to create the large interpolated image. (Id.). The Examiner finds that Smith teaches this procedure as being identical to upsampling by a factor of two. (Id.; emphasis at § 8.6.1, 2nd ¶). The Examiner finds that the example of Smith specifically teaches a 2x2 digital data set being upsampled/replicated/zero-order interpolated to a 4x4. (Id.) The Examiner finds that the Smith
PNG
media_image3.png
102
483
media_image3.png
Greyscale
upsampled/replicated/zero-order interpolated 4x4 replaces the a00 element of the 2x2 with a 2x2 array of a00 elements. Thus, the Examiner concludes that zero-order interpolation or replication is equivalent to the predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements. (Id.)
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate specifically setting a 16x16 transform quantization matrix, in the form of QM1, from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix, in the form of QM2, by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements as described in Smith in the image processing system of Lu and JCTVC-B205.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate specifically setting a 16x16 transform quantization matrix, in the form of QM1, from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix, in the form of QM2, by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, since it provides a mechanism to utilize the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an image processing data set. (Id. at § 8.6.1). In other words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HD processing that decreases required complex processing, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method. (Id.)
In addition, this combination of references satisfies at least rationale C identified by the Supreme Court in KSR: "Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way." (See MPEP 2143.) The elements of the Graham factual inquiry for supporting a finding of obviousness based on this rationale are provided below:
(1) A finding that the prior art (Lu and JCTVC-B205) contained a “base” device (an image processing system) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” for including setting a 16x16 transform quantization matrix, in the form of QM1, from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix, in the form of QM2, by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1.
(2) A finding that the prior art (Smith) contained a "comparable" device (digital processing image enhancement system) that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention, i.e. the Smith pixel replication or zero-order interpolation performs a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 in order to carry out, in addition to the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, a new function of utilizing the most simplest and conventional method of increasing a digital image processing data set.
(3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique in the same way to the “base” device (the Lu and JCTVC-B205 image processing system) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, because Lu indicates that utilizing an operation in the decoder on the receiving end can be used to derive a larger quantization transform block, in the form of QM1, from a smaller transmitted/received quantization transform block, in the form of QM2, and Smith teaches a manner for improving this, the result would be predictable. In other words, the Smith implementation or providing of pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set, in the form of QM2, to a larger digital image data set, in the form of QM1, that satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 proves that the implementation is both successful and entirely predictable. In Lu and JCTVC-B205, the image processing system modified according to Smith would be capable of incorporating the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an image processing data set (i.e., pixel replication or zero-order interpolation) of the Smith digital processing image enhancement system including the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set, in the form of QM2, to a larger digital image data set, in the form of QM1, that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1, in addition to higher end interpolation techniques, as evidenced by the success in the Smith digital processing image enhancement system.
In that regard, the Examiner asserts the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. That is, the manner of enhancing a particular device (providing of pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set, in the form of QM2, to a larger digital image data set, in the form of QM1, that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1) was made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in Smith. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known “improvement” technique in the same manner to the prior art an image processing system of Lu and JCTVC-B205 and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely, one skilled in the art would have readily recognized that a pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set, in the form of QM2, to a larger digital image data set, in the form of QM1, that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 in the image processing system of Lu and JCTVC-B205 would positively provide a means to carry out, in addition to the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, a new function of utilizing the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an digital image processing data set, since such functionality is taught to be highly desirable by Smith, as set forth supra.
Thus, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a “base” device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that if the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, then using the technique would not have been obvious. (KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396). If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to the limitations of claim 20, and
[20] [a]n image processing device comprising:
In this regard,, the Examiner finds that Lu discloses an image processing system and method. (Lu at Title; ¶¶ 0019, 0081, 0098-0099, 0107-0112; see Figures 4, 14, 16). The Examiner finds that the image processing system of Lu can be implemented as a computer product which may be a storage medium including instructions which can be used to program a computer to perform the image processing process. (Id. at ¶¶ 0115-0119; see Figures 17A-17C).
[20a] decoder circuitry configured to
receive encoded image data of an image;
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Lu discloses an image processing system and method receiving as input a Str having encoded image data. (Id. at ¶¶ 0019, 0108-0110; see Figures 4, 14).
[20b] [decoder circuitry configured to:]
decode encoded data of image data to generate quantized transform coefficient data;
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Lu discloses the image processing system/method being downloaded/uploaded to a computer system Cs and the computer system Cs performing the method. (Lu at ¶ 0114). In addition, the Examiner finds that Lu discloses a decoding apparatus (Lu at ¶¶ 0055, 0108; see Figures 4, 14) comprising a variable length decoding unit VLD1 that decodes the coded Str to attain weighting matrices Wmatrix. (Id. at ¶¶ 0110-0111). The Examiner finds that it is known in the art that variable length coding is lossless data compression. The Examiner finds that the output of the variable length decoding unit VLD1 would be the quantized transform coefficients data. (Id. at ¶ 0081).
[20c] [decoder circuitry configured to:]
inversely quantize the quantized transform coefficient data using a 16x16 quantization matrix to generate transform coefficient data, the 16x 16 quantization matrix includes a duplicate of at least one of two elements adjacent to each other from an 8x8 quantization matrix; and
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Lu discloses the image processing system/method being downloaded/uploaded to a computer system Cs and the computer system Cs performing the method. (Lu at ¶ 0114). In addition, the Examiner finds that Lu discloses the utilization of an inverse quantization unit IQ1 within the decoding apparatus that performs inverse quantization on the using the weighted quantization matrix. (Lu at ¶¶ 0106, 0107, 0110). The Examiner finds that Lu discloses encoding and decoding of the quantization matrix being limited to fixed size transform blocks and the need to be able to utilize multiple size blocks to meet the demand for high resolution images (HDTV). (Id. at ¶¶ 0019, 0021-0024). The Examiner finds that Lu discloses an embodiment in which the weighting matrices are determined on a per-stream or-picture basis in which an 8x8 weighting matrix W8 is derived from a 4x4 weighting matrix W4. (Id. at ¶¶ 0099-0100, 0104, 0106, 0112; see Figure 16). The Examiner finds that Lu discloses this embodiment as a mechanism to utilize the quantization transform block that will be especially effective. (Id. at ¶¶ 0099, 0106). In addition, the Examiner finds that Lu discloses the 8x8 weighting matrix W8 being utilized for generating prediction error data. (Id. at ¶¶ 0082-0083; see Figures 4, 14).
While Lu discloses the limitations as set forth above except for setting a 16x16 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix instead of setting an 8x8 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 4x4 transform quantization matrix; and the setting (i.e., the upsampling and/or interpolation) of the 16x16 transform quantization matrix being accomplished by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in the smaller 8x8 quantization matrix.
However, JCTVC-B205 teaches and suggests setting a 16x16 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix. JCTVC-B205, for example, teaches the previous “AVC” standard being limited to 4x4 and 8x8 quantization block transform matrices. (JCTVC-B205 at p.94-95; p.136, § 10.1). JCTVC-B205 further teaches that HD processing can now include, not only 4x4 and 8x8 quantization block transform matrices, but can now include 16x16, 32x32 and 64x64 quantization block transform matrices. (Id. at p.136, § 10.1). JCTVC-B205 further teaches that the utilization of large transforms provides better energy consumption and reduced quantization error, resulting in smoother data. (Id.)
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate specifically setting a 16x16 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix instead of setting an 8x8 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 4x4 transform quantization matrix as described in JCTVC-B205 in the image processing system of Lu.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate specifically setting a 16x16 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix instead of setting an 8x8 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 4x4 transform quantization matrix, since it provides a mechanism of utilizing large transforms with better energy consumption and reduced quantization error characteristics. (Id.) In other words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HD processing that provides improved coding efficiency of high resolution video, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method. (Id.)
Furthermore, the Examiner finds that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (i.e., “Obvious to try”), would lead to anticipated success. (See MPEP § 2143.I.E). That is, since Lu explicitly teaches the utilization of transmitting small size quantization transforms matrices of 4x4 and the deriving of larger quantization transforms matrices of 8x8 on the decoding end to utilize the quantization transform block that will be especially effective; and JCTVC-B205 explicitly teaches the utilization of 16x16 quantization block transform matrices to provide better energy consumption and reduced quantization error, resulting in smoother data, Lu and JCTVC-B205 teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions (i.e., transmit a small 8x8 quantization block transform matrix and derive a larger 16x16 quantization block transform therefrom) with a reasonable expectation of success (i.e., Obvious to try).
In addition, the Examiner finds that setting (i.e., the upsampling and/or interpolation) of the 16x16 transform quantization matrix being accomplished by performing a nearest neighboring process including duplicating at least one of two elements adjacent to each other in the smaller 8x8 quantization matrix is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Smith, for example, specifically teaches conventional image processing interpolation methods to increase the size of an image, one of which being a “pixel replication or zero-order interpolation.” (Id. Smith at §§ 8.6 – 8.6.1). The Examiner finds that Smith teaches the pixels being replicated from an NxN image to a 2Nx2N to create the large interpolated image. (Id.). The Examiner finds that Smith teaches this procedure as being identical to upsampling by a factor of two. (Id.; emphasis at § 8.6.1, 2nd ¶). Thus, the Examiner concludes that zero-order interpolation or replication is equivalent to the predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements. (See example in § 8.6.1 at top of p.417 of Smith)
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate specifically setting a 16x16 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements as described in Smith in the image processing system of Lu and JCTVC-B205.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate specifically setting a 16x16 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, since it provides a mechanism to utilize the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an image processing data set. (Id. at § 8.6.1;). In other words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HD processing that decreases required complex processing, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method. (Id.)
In addition, this combination of references satisfies at least rationale C identified by the Supreme Court in KSR: "Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way." (See MPEP 2143.) The elements of the Graham factual inquiry for supporting a finding of obviousness based on this rationale are provided below:
(1) A finding that the prior art (Lu and JCTVC-B205) contained a “base” device (an image processing system) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” for including setting a 16x16 transform quantization matrix from a smaller 8x8 transform quantization matrix by a predicated/duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1.
(2) A finding that the prior art (Smith) contained a "comparable" device (digital processing image enhancement system) that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention, i.e. the Smith pixel replication or zero-order interpolation performs a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 in order to carry out, in addition to the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, a new function of utilizing the most simplest and conventional method of increasing a digital image processing data set.
(3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique in the same way to the “base” device (the Lu and JCTVC-B205 image processing system) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, because Lu indicates that an operation in the decoder on the receiving end can be used to derive a larger quantization transform block from a smaller transmitted/received quantization transform block and Smith teaches a manner for improving this, the result would be predictable. In other words, the Smith implementation or providing of pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set to a larger digital image data set that satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 proves that the implementation is both successful and entirely predictable. In Lu and JCTVC-B205, the image processing system modified according to Smith would be capable of incorporating the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an image processing data set (i.e., pixel replication or zero-order interpolation) of the Smith digital processing image enhancement system including the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set to a larger digital image data set that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1, in addition to higher end interpolation techniques, as evidenced by the success in the Smith digital processing image enhancement system.
In that regard, the Examiner asserts the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. That is, the manner of enhancing a particular device (providing of pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set to a larger digital image data set that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1) was made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in Smith. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known “improvement” technique in the same manner to the prior art an image processing system of Lu and JCTVC-B205 and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely, one skilled in the art would have readily recognized that a pixel replication or zero-order interpolation that results in a duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements from a smaller digital image data set to a larger digital image data set that sufficiently satisfies the circuitry of claim 1 in the image processing system of Lu and JCTVC-B205 would positively provide a means to carry out, in addition to the duplication of nearest-neighboring matrices elements, a new function of utilizing the most simplest and conventional method of increasing an digital image processing data set, since such functionality is taught to be highly desirable by Smith, as set forth supra.
Thus, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a “base” device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that if the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, then using the technique would not have been obvious. (KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396). If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
[20d] [decoder circuitry configured to:]
generate from the transform coefficient data decoded image data of the image.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Lu discloses the image processing system/method being downloaded/uploaded to a computer system Cs and the computer system Cs performing the method. (Lu at ¶ 0114). In addition, the Examiner finds that Lu discloses the system and method combining the predicted error data with a predicted image to generate decoded image data. (Id. at ¶ 0084; see Figures 4, 14).
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0159165) (“Lu”) in view of “Test Model under Construction,” Draft 000, Document JCTVC-B205, Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of lTU-T SG16 WP3 and 1SO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, 2nd Meeting: Geneva, CH, 21-28 July, 2010 (“JCTVC-B205”) and Smith et al., “A Study Guide for Digital Processing,” Second Edition, Scientific Publishers (1997) (“Smith”) as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12, 13 and 15-20 above, and in further view of Chang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0237236)(“Chang”).
With respect to the limitations of claims 2 and 11, and
[2] further comprising a filter to filter the decoded image data; and
[11] further comprising filtering the decoded image data
Lu, JCTVC-B205 and Smith discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for a filter to filter the decoded image data.
However, an image processing system and method including a filter to filter the decoded image data is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Chang, for example, teaches the utilization of a filter to filter decoded image data. (Chang at ¶ 0061).
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system and method of Lu, JCTVC-B205 and Smith to include a filter to filter decoded image data as described in Zhang.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to a filter to filter decoded image data, since it provides a mechanism to adaptively smooth discontinuities and other artifacts in the picture. (Id.)
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0159165) (“Lu”) in view of “Test Model under Construction,” Draft 000, Document JCTVC-B205, Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of lTU-T SG16 WP3 and 1SO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, 2nd Meeting: Geneva, CH, 21-28 July, 2010 (“JCTVC-B205”) and Smith et al., “A Study Guide for Digital Processing,” Second Edition, Scientific Publishers (1997) (“Smith”) as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12, 13 and 15-20 above, and in further view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,326,068)(“Zhang”).
With respect to the limitations of claims 5 and 14, and
[5, 14] wherein the 8x8 quantization matrix is a default quantization matrix.
Lu, JCTVC-B205 and Smith discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the 8x8 quantization matrix being a default quantization matrix.
However, an image processing system and method including an 8x8 quantization matrix being a default quantization matrix is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Zhang, for example, teaches an 8x8 quantization matrix as being a default quantization matrix. (Zhang at c.3, ll.2-3; c.5, ll.40-44; see Figure 4).
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system and method of Lu, JCTVC-B205 and Smith to include an 8x8 quantization matrix being a default quantization matrix as described in Zhang.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate an 8x8 quantization matrix as being a default quantization matrix, since it provides a mechanism to ensure that the image processing device operates and maintains desired exiting behavior in calculating larger quantization matrices. In other words, such a modification would have provided a stabilized platform for HD processing that will not provide initial undesired results, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of the image processing device and method.
Conclusion
Applicant is respectfully reminded that any suggestions or examples of claim language provided by the Examiner are just that—suggestions or examples—and do not constitute a formal requirement mandated by the Examiner. To be especially clear, any suggestion or example provided in this Office Action (or in any future office action) does not constitute a formal requirement mandated by the Examiner.
Should Applicant decide to amend the claims, Applicant is also reminded that—like always—no new matter is allowed. The Examiner therefore leaves it up to Applicant to choose the precise claim language of the amendment in order to ensure that the amended language complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112 1st paragraph.
Independent of the requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112 1st paragraph, Applicant is also respectfully reminded that when amending a particular claim, all claim terms must have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Should Applicant amend the claims such that the claim language no longer has clear support or antecedent basis in the specification, an objection to the specification may result. Therefore, in these situations where the amended claim language does not have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification and to prevent a subsequent ‘Objection to the Specification’ in the next office action, Applicant is encouraged to either (1) re-evaluate the amendment and change the claim language so the claims do have clear support or antecedent basis or, (2) amend the specification to ensure that the claim language does have clear support or antecedent basis. See again MPEP § 608.01(o) (¶3). Should Applicant choose to amend the specification, Applicant is reminded that—like always—no new matter in the specification is allowed. See 35 U.S.C. § 132(a). If Applicant has any questions on this matter, Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner via the telephone number listed below.
Applicant is reminded of the obligation to apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceedings in which the ‘995 Patent is or was involved, such as interferences or trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, other reissues, reexaminations, or litigations and the results of such proceedings.
In accordance with MPEP § 1406, the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited or ‘of record’ in the original prosecution of the ‘995 Patent. Applicant is reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the original prosecution of the ‘995 Patent need not be resubmitted in this reissue application unless Applicant desires the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this reissue application.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 C.F.R. §1.56 to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J RALIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6227. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hetul Patel can be reached on 571-272-4184. 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.
/Stephen J. Ralis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/KENNETH WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /ANDREW J. FISCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
SJR
08/20/2026
Prosecution Insights