DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the abstract idea mathematical concept 101 rejection. Applicant states that “formation of compressed data for each of a number of channels for a block of image data” is clearly tangible and not abstract.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Byte data compression is a mathematical concept that cannot be performed without the use of lossless algorithms, lossy algorithms, or a hybrid of lossless and lossy algorithms. At no point can data compression be performed without the mathematical concept of an algorithm. While the claims do not state the term “algorithm” it does claim “compression” specific to byte data compression which IS a mathematical concept as shown above. Applicant’s originally filed specification admits to such in the second paragraph (background) and paragraph [0070] wherein compression is of lossless or lossy [algorithms]. Further, independent claims 1, 19, and 20 all recite the use of “losslessly representing” data values, claiming the use of lossless algorithm for compression [mathematical concepts].
MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) Abstract Idea Groupings I. Mathematical concepts: The Court’s rationale for identifying these "mathematical concepts" as judicial exceptions is that a ‘‘mathematical [concept] as such is not accorded the protection of our patent laws,’’ Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191, 209 USPQ at 15 (citing Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673), and thus ‘‘the discovery of [a mathematical concept] cannot support a patent unless there is some other inventive concept in its application.’’ Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ at 199.
As shown above, a claim employing a mathematical concept does direct the claims to an abstract idea unless “there is some other inventive concept in its application”.
To identify the inventive concept, in view of the claims, we look at the updated subject matter analysis provided by Ex Parte Desjardins (December 5, 2025), herein after referred to as Desjardins, and 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence published July 17, 2024 (89 FR 58128) (AI-SME Update). Desjardins, page 1 “2)”, states “improvements in computational
performance, learning, storage, data set and structures, for example, can constitute patent-eligible technological advancements under the Alice framework.” In order to identify the improvement as being an eligible improvement in technology “ when the specification provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing a technological improvement and the claims reflect the disclosed improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, so long as the specification describes the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.” (Desjardin page 3)(MPEP2106.05(a)).
Therefore, establishing whether the claimed mathematical concepts are directed to an abstract idea is tied to whether the inventive concept is claimed or reflected by the claims. Applicant’s remarks, page 5, reiterates the necessity of the invention to be directed to a technological and practical improvement but does not argue or imply any type of improvement performed/reflected by the claims. Paragraph [0064] of the current application’s originally filed specification describes an advantage of reducing the size of compressed data at a trade off increased errors that are introduced due to the lossy compression technique [algorithm, math] (paragraph [0066] alternatively describes use of the lossless compression technique [also an algorithm, math]). However, in order to achieve the desired advantage, a particular compression ratio must be reached at a target level minimum without too much loss in quality of the data (paragraphs [0009] (background), [0066], and [0070]). Paragraph [0011] describes prior art known means of compressing and decompressing image data to satisfy target levels of compression. Therefore, achieving a target level minimum is not considered an improvement to the technology. Paragraph [0180] describes comparing the decompressed values with original input values (after performing the channel and non-channel decorrelating modes) introduced some small errors into the blue channel but not into the green, red, and alpha channels. This describes in an abstract and not precise manner “without too much loss in the quality of data”. However, none of the claims recite, reflect, or imply any such target level minimum in correspondence with a range of “too much loss” to be considered an improvement to the technology as recited by the current application’s specification.
Applicant argued claim 19 compression unit to be directed to an apparatus and therefore not a mathematical concept, the same argument from above is applied. A compression unit performing compression without disclosing the improvement to the technology.
Applicant argued claim 20 non-transitory computer readable storage medium. As describe on pages 3-4 of the prior office action said medium is used in a generic manner to perform the mathematical operation and has not bearing in determining the improvement to the technology. The 101 rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims 1 and 19-20 recite compressing a block of image data, for each of the one or more non-reference channels: determining a number of bits for a non-channel decorrelating mode, nnon-decorrelated, for losslessly representing a difference between a maximum and a minimum of the data values of the non-reference channel for the block; determining decorrelated data values for the non-reference channel by finding, for each image element value in the block, a difference between the data value of the non-reference channel and the data value of the reference channel; determining a number of bits for a channel decorrelating mode, ndecorrelated, for losslessly representing a difference between a maximum and a minimum of the decorrelated data values of the non-reference channel for the block; comparing the determined number of bits for the non-channel decorrelating mode, nnon-decorrelated, with the determined number of bits for the channel decorrelating mode, ndecorrelated; and wherein if the channel decorrelating mode is selected then the decorrelated data values for the non-reference channel for the block are used in place of the data values of the non-reference channel for the block for determining compressed channel data for the non-reference channel; determining compressed channel data for each of the channels for the block; and forming compressed data comprising: an indication of the selected mode for each of the one or more non-reference channels, and the determined compressed channel data for each of the channels.
The claimed limitations are directed to mathematical concepts specifically mathematical relationships, formulas and calculations for selecting a compression mode based on number of bits for a channel comparisons and differences between image channel data, all mathematical operations applied to data. Mathematical concepts are considered abstract ideas under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the claims are “computer-implemented”, “compression unit”, “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” and applied to image data compression, the “computer-implemented”, “compression unit”, “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” are used in a generic manner to perform the mathematical operations. There is no improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to another technology or technical field beyond the abstract mathematical selection process. See Digitech Image Tech. v. Electronics for Imaging, 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The additional elements — a generic computer and generic processing of image data — are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the art. The combination of these elements amounts to no more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is therefore ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein said selecting either the channel decorrelating mode or the non-channel decorrelating mode in dependence on the result of the comparison comprises: selecting the channel decorrelating mode if the determined number of bits for the non- channel decorrelating mode, nnon-decorrelated, is greater than the determined number of bits for the channel decorrelating mode, ndecorrelated; and selecting the non-channel decorrelating mode if the determined number of bits for the non- channel decorrelating mode, nnon-decorrelated, is less than the determined number of bits for the channel decorrelating mode, ndecorrelated”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical operations, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein said selecting either the channel decorrelating mode or the non-channel decorrelating mode in dependence on the result of the comparison further comprises: selecting the non-channel decorrelating mode if the determined number of bits for the non- channel decorrelating mode, nnon-decorrelated , is equal to the determined number of bits for the channel decorrelating mode, ndecorrelated”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical operations, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein said selection of either the channel decorrelating mode or the non-channel decorrelating mode is further in dependence on whether a minimum of the decorrelated data values for the non-reference channel is within an inclusive range from -
PNG
media_image1.png
13
26
media_image1.png
Greyscale
to
PNG
media_image2.png
13
28
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where Xmax is the maximum value that a data value can have, wherein the non-channel decorrelating mode is selected if: (i) the determined number of bits for the non-channel decorrelating mode, nnon-decorrelated, is less than the determined number of bits for the channel decorrelating mode, ndecorrelated, or (ii) the minimum of the decorrelated data values for the non-reference channel is not within the inclusive range; and wherein the channel decorrelating mode is selected if: (i) the determined number of bits for the non-channel decorrelating mode, nnon-decorrelated, is greater than the determined number of bits for the channel decorrelating mode, ndecorrelated, and (ii) the minimum of the decorrelated data values for the non-reference channel is within the inclusive range”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical operations, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein there are a plurality of non-reference channels, and wherein the channel decorrelating mode is selected for a first of the plurality of non-reference channels and the non-channel decorrelating mode is selected for a second of the plurality of non- reference channels”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical operations, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein said plurality of channels comprises a Red channel, a Green channel and a Blue channel, and wherein the Green channel is the reference channel, wherein the decorrelated data value of the Red channel for the ith image element value of the block (R' i) is determined such that R' i = R i - G i, …”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical operations, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein said determining compressed channel data for each of the channels for the block comprises, for each of the channels: determining an origin value for the channel for the block; and determining difference values representing differences between the data values and the determined origin value for the channel for the block”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical operations, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein said determined compressed channel data comprises, for each of the channels: an indication of the determined origin value for the channel, and representations of the determined difference values for the channel”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical operations, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein, for each of the non-reference channels, the indication of the determined origin value for the non-reference channel is included in the compressed data as a number representing: (i) the determined origin value for the non-reference channel, or (ii) a difference between the determined origin value for the non-reference channel and the determined origin value for the reference channel for the block”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical operations, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “said determining compressed channel data for each of the channels for the block further comprises, for each of the channels, determining a first number of bits for losslessly representing a maximum difference value of the difference values for the channel for the block; and said determined compressed channel data comprises, for each of the channels, an indication of said determined first number of bits for the channel”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical operations, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein, for each of the channels, said determining a first number of bits comprises: obtaining the maximum difference value of the difference values for the channel for the block; and determining how many bits would be used to represent the maximum difference value without any leading zeros, wherein said determined number of bits is the first number of bits”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical operations, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein, for each of the channels, each of the representations of the determined difference values for the channel uses said determined first number of bits for the channel”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical operations, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 13 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein the method satisfies a target level of compression, and wherein the method further comprises: using said determined first number of bits for each of the channels to determine a respective second number of bits for each of the channels, the second numbers of bits being determined such that representing each of the difference values for the channels with said respective second number of bits satisfies the target level of compression for compressing the block of image data; wherein, for each of the channels, each of the representations of the determined difference values for the channel uses said determined second number of bits for the channel, such that the target level of compression is satisfied”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical operations, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 14 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 14 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein said using said determined first number of bits for each of the channels to determine a respective second number of bits for each of the channels comprises determining whether representing the difference values for the channels with the respective determined first numbers of bits would satisfy the target level of compression, wherein if it is determined that representing the difference values for the channels with the respective determined first numbers of bits would satisfy the target level of compression then, for each of the channels, the second number of bits equals the first number of bits for that channel, and wherein if it is determined that representing the difference values for the channels with the respective determined first numbers of bits would not satisfy the target level of compression then, for at least one of the channels, the second number of bits is less than the first number of bits for that channel”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical operations, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 15 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein said using said determined first number of bits for each of the channels to determine a respective second number of bits for each of the channels comprises reducing the first numbers of bits by zero, one or more to thereby determine the second numbers of bits such that representing each of the difference values for the channels with said respective second numbers of bits by removing zero, one or more least significant bits (LSBs) from representations of the difference values having the determined first numbers of bits satisfies the target level of compression for compressing the block of image data”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical operations, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 16 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 16 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein said using said determined first number of bits for each of the channels to determine a respective second number of bits for each of the channels comprises reducing the first numbers of bits by zero, one or more to thereby determine the second numbers of bits such that representing each of the difference values for the channels with said respective second numbers of bits by mapping the representations of the difference values having the first numbers of bits to representations of the difference values having the second numbers of bits in accordance with a predetermined lookup table satisfies the target level of compression for compressing the block of image data”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical operations, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 17 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein said respective second numbers of bits for the channels are determined using said determined first numbers of bits for the channels in accordance with a predetermined scheme”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical operations, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 18 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 18 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “comprising, in the event that the channel decorrelating mode is selected: determining decompressed data values for the reference channel using the indication of the origin value and the representations of the determined difference values for the reference channel; for each of the one or more non-reference channels: determining new decorrelated data values for the non-reference channel by finding, for each image element value in the block, a difference between the data value of the non-reference channel and the decompressed data value of the reference channel; and using the new decorrelated data values in place of the data values of the non- reference channel for the block for determining compressed channel data for the non- reference channel”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical operations, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRIANA CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3246. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270-3438. 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.
/IRIANA CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights