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 .
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.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the claims are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. All claims fall within a statutory category under § 101.
Claim 1 and 10: method.
Claims 12: processing system.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
The claims are directed to the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and using data to make a decision (specifically, using an "identified first level of interest" to set a "motion vector quality parameter" and generate a "first motion vector").
This can be characterized as a mental process that a person could perform in their mind or with pen and paper, perhaps with the aid of generic tools. The process of "identifying a level of interest" and "setting a parameter" based on that interest is a conceptual step, not a specific technical solution to a technical problem.
Claim 2 further emphasizes this by linking the "level of interest" identification to a "first rasterized motion vector," which is merely using data as input for the mental analysis, not a physical transformation or a specific technical improvement to the underlying technology (e.g., an image sensor or a display itself).
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover applying mathematical algorithms and/or calculations. The use of a computer or processing device include no more than applying the exception using a generic computer or computer component. The limitations are not directed to an improvement in the computer itself or a computer component and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept.
To distinguish ineligible claims that merely recite a judicial exception from eligible claims that require an implementation of judicial exception, the Supreme Court uses a two-step framework: Step One (Step 2A), determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts; and Step Two (Step 2B), if so, ask “what else is there in the claims?’ to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent eligible application.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
In the present case:
The language used is functional and generic. The claims do not specify how the motion vector quality parameter is set in a non-conventional, technical way, nor do they specify a particular, unconventional machine or process to achieve the stated goal.
The method merely recites a result (setting a parameter and generating a vector) without describing a specific, innovative mechanism or improvement in computer or image processing technology beyond a generic computer implementation of an abstract process.
Simply stating the steps occur within the context of an "image" does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not provide a concrete or physical mechanism that is "inextricably tied" to a particular machine or manufacture, as required by case law.
Accordingly, none of the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The following computer functions have been recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality): receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
In the present case the steps are routine and well understood.
Claim 12 recites a generic processor. The claims do not describe an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself bur rather improvement to the mathematical process. Also, skipping in claim 5 is well understood routine activity.
Thus, since claims 1-20 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1-20 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-10, 12-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maharana (20220351392) in view of Lee (20120128261).
Regarding claim 1, Maharana teaches a method comprising: setting a motion vector quality parameter based on an identified first level of interest for a first region of an image (see par. 50); and
Lee teaches generating a first motion vector based on the motion vector quality parameter (see par 11 and 58-59, determining a range and predicting a motion vector).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Maharana the ability to generate motion vectors within a specific range as taught by Lee to make the system more efficient.
Regarding claim 2, see pars. 49-51 of Maharana.
Regarding claim 8, see pars. 11 and 47 of Lee search range.
Regarding claim 9, see Maharana, par. 50, higher quality.
Regarding claims 10, see the rejection of claims 1 and 9.
Regarding claims 12-13, see the rejection of claims 1-2.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, see the rejection of claims 8-9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3-7, 11, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maharana (20220351392) in view of Lee (20120128261) in further view of Wang (20080247466).
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches identifying a set of pixels of a reference image based on the first rasterized motion vector; and identifying the first level of interest comprises comparing a set of pixels of the first region to the identified set of pixels of the reference image (see par. 28, comparing macroblocks).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Maharana and Lee the ability to compare regions as taught by Wang. The reason is to allow for decision making.
Regarding claim 4, see par. 30 of Wang, threshold.
Regarding claim 5, see par. 30 of Wang, skip mode.
Regarding claims 6-7, see par. 27 of Wang, color.
Regarding claim 11, see the rejection of claims 3-4.
Regarding claim 14-18, see the rejection of claims 3-7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI AKHAVANNIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8622. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM Monday to Friday.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/HADI AKHAVANNIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676