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 Preliminary Amendment
This action is responsive to the preliminary amendments and remarks received 29 May 2024. Claims 1 - 15 are currently pending.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2 - 3 of claim 6 recite, in part, “using clipping function having a minimum value” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --using a clipping function having a minimum value-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2 - 3 of claim 7 recite, in part, “initial reconstructed signal is greater than the preset range” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --initial reconstructed signal [[is]] being greater than the preset range-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 7 - 8 of claim 13 recite, in part, “using clipping function having a minimum value” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --using a clipping function having a minimum value-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2 - 3 of claim 14 recite, in part, “initial residual signal is greater than the preset range” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --initial residual signal [[is]] being greater than the preset range-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 5, 7, 9 and 11 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the maximum value of the preset range" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the minimum value of the preset range" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the reconstructed signal" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention because it is unclear as to which value of the initial reconstructed signal “the value of the initial reconstructed signal” recited on line 2 is referencing. Is it referring to the “value of the initial reconstructed signal” recited on lines 5 - 6 of claim 1 or the “value of the initial reconstructed signal” recited on lines 1 - 2 of claim 7? Additionally, it is unclear as to whether the “value of the initial reconstructed signal” recited on lines 5 - 6 of claim 1 and the “value of the initial reconstructed signal” recited on lines 1 - 2 of claim 7 are the same value or are different values. Clarification and appropriate correction are required. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will treat “the value of the initial reconstructed signal” recited on line 2 of claim 7 as referencing at least one of the “value of the initial reconstructed signal” recited on lines 5 - 6 of claim 1 and the “value of the initial reconstructed signal” recited on lines 1 - 2 of claim 7.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the maximum value of the preset range" in lines 1 - 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the minimum value of the preset range" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the transformed reconstructed signal" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the residual signal" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the residual signal" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention because it is unclear as to which preset range “the preset range” recited on line 8, along with subsequent recitations of “the preset range”, are referencing. Are they referring to the “preset range” recited on line 6 of claim 8 or the “preset range” recited on line 5 of claim 13 Additionally, it is unclear as to whether the “preset range” recited on line 6 of claim 8 and the “preset range” recited on line 5 of claim 13 are the same preset range or are preset ranges. Clarification and appropriate correction are required. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will treat “the preset range” recited on line 8 of claim 13, along with subsequent recitations of “the preset range”, as referencing the “preset range” recited on line 5 of claim 13.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention because it is unclear as to which value of the initial residual signal “the value of the initial residual signal” recited on line 2 is referencing. Is it referring to the “value of the initial residual signal” recited on line 5 of claim 8 or the “value of the initial residual signal” recited on lines 1 - 2 of claim 14? Additionally, it is unclear as to whether the “value of the initial residual signal” recited on line 5 of claim 8 and the “value of the initial residual signal” recited on lines 1 - 2 of claim 14 are the same value or are different values. Clarification and appropriate correction are required. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will treat “the value of the initial residual signal” recited on line 2 of claim 14 as referencing at least one of the “value of the initial residual signal” recited on line 5 of claim 8 and the “value of the initial residual signal” recited on lines 1 - 2 of claim 14.
Statutory Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/072,146 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Nonstatutory 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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 8 - 12, 14 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,650,666. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 8 - 12, 14 and 15 would have been obvious over and/or obvious variations of claims 1, 4, 5 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,650,666.
a. With regards to instant claim 8; Instant claim 8 differs from claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,650,666 in slight variations of wording/terminology and in that claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,650,666 includes additional limitations that are not required by instant claim 8. However, the Examiner asserts that instant claim 8, which recites the opened ended transitional phrase “comprising”, does not preclude the additional limitation(s) recited in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,650,666. Therefore, instant claim 8 is found to be anticipated by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,650,666; anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness” (In re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974)). The Examiner notes that terms prediction signal, input signal, initial residual signal and transformed residual signal of instant claim 8 correspond to terms reference signal, phase image, differential phase information and the phase image based on the phase remapping, respectively, of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,650,666.
b. With regards to instant claim 15; Instant claim 15 differs from claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,650,666 in slight variations of wording/terminology and in that it additionally requires a recording medium for storing a bitstream generated by the image encoding method. However, the Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,650,666 to include utilizing a recording medium for storing a bitstream generated by the image encoding method. Utilizing a recording medium to store a bitstream generated by an image encoding method would enhance claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,650,666 by allowing users to save the encoded data for later retrieval, processing and/or sharing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,650,666 to include a recording medium for storing a bitstream generated by the image encoding method.
The Examiner notes that the table provided herein below identifies the corresponding conflicting claim relationships between the instant application and U.S. Patent No. 12,650,666.
18/714,539
12,650,666
Claim 8
Claim 1
Claim 9
Claim 1
Claim 10
Claims 4 and/or 5
Claim 11
Claims 4 and/or 5
Claim 12
Claims 4 and/or 5
Claim 14
Claims 4 and/or 5
Claim 15
Claim 1
Claims 1 - 5, 7 - 12, 14 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of copending Application No. 18,072,146 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1 - 5, 7 - 12, 14 and 15 would have been obvious over and/or obvious variations of claims 1 and 7 of copending Application No. 18,072,146.
a. With regards to instant claim 1; Instant claim 1 differs from claim 1 of copending Application No. 18,072,146 in slight variations of wording/terminology and in that claim 1 of copending Application No. 18,072,146 includes additional limitations that are not required by instant claim 1. However, the Examiner asserts that instant claim 1, which recites the opened ended transitional phrase “comprising”, does not preclude the additional limitation(s) recited in claim 1 of copending Application No. 18,072,146. Therefore, instant claim 1 is found to be anticipated by claim 1 of copending Application No. 18,072,146; anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness” (In re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974)).
b. With regards to instant claim 8; Instant claim 8 differs from claim 8 of copending Application No. 18,072,146 in slight variations of wording/terminology and in that claim 7 of copending Application No. 18,072,146 includes additional limitations that are not required by instant claim 8. However, the Examiner asserts that instant claim 8, which recites the opened ended transitional phrase “comprising”, does not preclude the additional limitation(s) recited in claim 7 of copending Application No. 18,072,146. Therefore, instant claim 8 is found to be anticipated by claim 7 of copending Application No. 18,072,146; anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness” (In re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974)).
c. With regards to instant claim 15; Instant claim 15 differs from claim 7 of copending Application No. 18,072,146 in slight variations of wording/terminology and in that it additionally requires a recording medium for storing a bitstream generated by the image encoding method. However, the Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify claim 7 of copending Application No. 18,072,146 to include utilizing a recording medium for storing a bitstream generated by the image encoding method. Utilizing a recording medium to store a bitstream generated by an image encoding method would enhance claim 7 of copending Application No. 18,072,146 by allowing users to save the encoded data for later retrieval, processing and/or sharing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify claim 7 of copending Application No. 18,072,146 to include a recording medium for storing a bitstream generated by the image encoding method.
The Examiner notes that the table provided herein below identifies the corresponding conflicting claim relationships between the instant application and copending Application No. 18,072,146.
18/714,539
18/072,146
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 2
Claim 1
Claim 3
Claim 1
Claim 4
Claim 1
Claim 5
Claim 1
Claim 7
Claim 1
Claim 8
Claim 7
Claim 9
Claim 7
Claim 10
Claim 7
Claim 11
Claim 7
Claim 12
Claim 7
Claim 14
Claim 7
Claim 15
Claim 7
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/072,146 in view of Huarong Gu and Guofan Jin, “Phase-difference-based compression of phase-only holograms for holographic three-dimensional display”, Optics Express, Vol. 26, No. 26, Dec. 2018, pages 33592 - 33603, herein referred to as “Gu et al.”.
a. With regards to instant claim 13; Instant claim 13 differs from claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/072,146 in that it additionally requires generating a transformed residual signal by transforming a value of the initial residual signal to have a size value within a preset range, wherein the transformed residual signal is generated based on a period of a signal, wherein the preset range is a range of the period of the signal. Pertaining to analogous art, Gu et al. disclose the aforementioned missing limitations, see at least page 33593 second-full paragraph - third-full paragraph, pages 33595 - 33596 section 3 and page 33596 figure 6 of Gu et al. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/072,146 to include transforming a value of the initial residual signal to have a size value within a preset range, wherein the transformed residual signal is generated based on a period of a signal, wherein the preset range is a range of the period of the signal. Transforming a value of the initial residual signal to have a size value within a preset range, wherein the transformed residual signal is generated based on a period of a signal, and wherein the preset range is a range of the period of the signal would enhance claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/072,146 by allowing for it to properly capture and encode and decode phase difference data that has been regulated to values between -π and π. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/072,146 to include transforming a value of the initial residual signal to have a size value within a preset range, wherein the transformed residual signal is generated based on a period of a signal, and wherein the preset range is a range of the period of the signal.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 - 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huarong Gu and Guofan Jin, “Phase-difference-based compression of phase-only holograms for holographic three-dimensional display”, Optics Express, Vol. 26, No. 26, Dec. 2018, pages 33592 - 33603, herein referred to as “Gu et al.”.
- With regards to claim 8, Gu et al. disclose a method for encoding an image, (Gu et al., Pg. 33592 Abstract, Pg. 33593 Line 1 - Third-Full Paragraph, Pgs. 33595 - 33596 § 3, Pg. 33596 Fig. 6, Pg. 33602 § 5) the method comprising: generating a prediction signal for an input signal; (Gu et al., Pg. 33593 First-Full Paragraph - Third-Full Paragraph, Pg. 33594 Second-Full Paragraph, Pg. 33594 Fig. 3, Pgs. 33595 - 33596 § 3, Pg. 33595 Fig. 5, Pg. 33596 Fig. 6 [“For simplicity, the phase of the reference pixel is chosen to be zero”]) calculating an initial residual signal, which is a difference value between the input signal and the prediction signal; (Gu et al., Pg. 33593 Third-Full Paragraph, Pgs. 33595 - 33596 § 3, Pg. 33595 Fig. 5, Pg. 33596 Fig. 6 [“phase difference between two pixel values, Φ1 and Φ2, is defined as ΔΦ12 = Φ2 - Φ1 + 2mπ
∈
(-π, π]”]) generating a transformed residual signal by transforming a value of the initial residual signal to have a size value within a preset range; (Gu et al., Pg. 33593 Third-Full Paragraph, Pgs. 33595 - 33596 § 3, Pg. 33596 Fig. 6 [“Pixel values of the phase-only holograms are regulated between -π and π to represent phase difference”]) and encoding the transformed residual signal, (Gu et al., Pg. 33592 Abstract, Pg. 33593 Third-Full Paragraph, Pgs. 33595 - 33596 § 3, Pg. 33596 Fig. 6, Pg. 33602 § 5) wherein the transformed residual signal is generated based on a period of a signal, (Gu et al., Pg. 33593 Second-Full Paragraph - Third-Full Paragraph, Pgs. 33595 - 33596 § 3, Pg. 33596 Fig. 6 [“Pixel values of the phase-only holograms are regulated between -π and π to represent phase difference”]) wherein the preset range is a range of the period of the signal. (Gu et al., Pg. 33593 Second-Full Paragraph - § 2 First-Full Paragraph, Pg. 33594 Fig. 3, Pgs. 33595 - 33596 § 3, Pg. 33596 Fig. 6)
- With regards to claim 9, Gu et al. disclose the method of claim 8, wherein an absolute value of the maximum value of the preset range is equal to an absolute value of the minimum value of the preset range. (Gu et al., Pg. 33593 Third-Full Paragraph, Pgs. 33595 - 33596 § 3, Pg. 33596 Fig. 6 [“Pixel values of the phase-only holograms are regulated between -π and π to represent phase difference.”])
- With regards to claim 10, Gu et al. disclose the method of claim 8, wherein the generating the transformed residual signal is determined whether to be performed based on a size of the initial residual signal. (Gu et al., Pg. 33593 Third-Full Paragraph, Pgs. 33595 - 33596 § 3, Pg. 33596 Fig. 6 [“Pixel values of the phase-only holograms are regulated between -π and π to represent phase difference.” The Examiner asserts that if a first value of the initial residual signal, the phase difference between two pixel values, is already between -π and π then the generating the transformed residual signal for the first value of the initial residual signal is not performed.])
- With regards to claim 11, Gu et al. disclose the method of claim 10, wherein in response to the size of the initial residual signal being within the preset range, the generating the transformed reconstructed signal is determined not to be performed. (Gu et al., Pg. 33593 Third-Full Paragraph, Pgs. 33595 - 33596 § 3, Pg. 33596 Fig. 6 [“Pixel values of the phase-only holograms are regulated between -π and π to represent phase difference.” The Examiner asserts that if a first value of the initial residual signal, the phase difference between two pixel values, is already between -π and π then the generating the transformed residual signal for the first value of the initial residual signal is not performed.])
- With regards to claim 12, Gu et al. disclose the method of claim 10, wherein the generating the transformed residual signal is characterized by transforming the residual signal by using a maximum value of the preset range based on a sign of the initial residual signal in response to a size value of the initial residual signal not being a value within the preset range. (Gu et al., Pg. 33593 Third-Full Paragraph, Pgs. 33595 - 33596 § 3, Pg. 33596 Fig. 6 [“Pixel values of the phase-only holograms are regulated between -π and π to represent phase difference” and “phase difference between two pixel values, Φ1 and Φ2, is defined as ΔΦ12 = Φ2 - Φ1 + 2mπ
∈
(-π, π]”. The Examiner asserts that π, the maximum value of the preset range, is used to regulate values of the phase difference to have a value of the preset range.])
- With regards to claim 14, Gu et al. disclose the method of claim 8, wherein the encoding method further comprises normalizing a range of a value of the initial residual signal, in response to the value of the initial residual signal is greater than the preset range. (Gu et al., Pg. 33593 Third-Full Paragraph, Pgs. 33595 - 33596 § 3, Pg. 33596 Fig. 6 [“Pixel values of the phase-only holograms are regulated between -π and π to represent phase difference.”])
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 - 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasubramonian et al. U.S. Publication No. 2020/0014922 A1 in view of Huarong Gu and Guofan Jin, “Phase-difference-based compression of phase-only holograms for holographic three-dimensional display”, Optics Express, Vol. 26, No. 26, Dec. 2018, pages 33592 - 33603, herein referred to as “Gu et al.”.
- With regards to claim 1, Ramasubramonian et al. disclose a method for decoding an image, (Ramasubramonian et al., Abstract, Figs. 4 & 7, Pg. 1 ¶ 0006 - 0007, Pg. 11 ¶ 0117 - Pg. 12 ¶ 0123, Pg. 17 ¶ 0198 - 0199 and 0205) the method comprising: generating a prediction signal for a current signal; (Ramasubramonian et al., Figs. 4 & 7, Pg. 1 ¶ 0006 - 0007, Pg. 6 ¶ 0059 - 0061, Pg. 12 ¶ 0121 - 0123, Pg. 17 ¶ 0198 - 0199 and 0204 - 0205) decoding a residual signal from a bitstream; (Ramasubramonian et al., Figs. 3, 4, 6 & 7, Pg. 6 ¶ 0058 - 0061, Pg. 11 ¶ 0117 - Pg. 12 ¶ 0123, Pg. 17 ¶ 0197 - 0199 and 0205) generating an initial reconstructed signal based on the prediction signal and the residual signal; (Ramasubramonian et al., Figs. 4 & 7, Pg. 6 ¶ 0058 - 0061, Pg. 12 ¶ 0123, Pg. 17 ¶ 0198 - 0199 and 0205) and generating a transformed reconstructed signal by transforming a value of the initial reconstructed signal to have a size value of a preset range. (Ramasubramonian et al., Fig. 4, Pg. 6 ¶ 0060 - 0061, Pg. 12 ¶ ¶ 0123 - 0128) Ramasubramonian et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein the transformed reconstructed signal is generated based on a period of a signal, and wherein the preset range is a period range of a signal. Pertaining to analogous art, Gu et al. disclose a method for decoding an image, (Gu et al., Pg. 33592 Abstract, Pg. 33593 Third-Full Paragraph, Pgs. 33595 - 33596 § 3, Pg. 33596 Fig. 6, Pg. 33598 First-Full Paragraph, Pg. 33598 Fig. 9 [“To reconstruct the 3D object, the compressed grayscale image and the compressed binary image are decompressed and used to recover the phase difference”]) the method comprising: generating a transformed reconstructed signal by transforming a value of the initial reconstructed signal to have a size value of a preset range, (Gu et al., Pg. 33592 Abstract, Pg. 33593 Third-Full Paragraph, Pgs. 33595 - 33596 § 3, Pg. 33596 Fig. 6, Pg. 33598 First-Full Paragraph, Pg. 33598 Fig. 9 [“Pixel values of the phase-only holograms are regulated between -π and π to represent phase difference”]) wherein the transformed reconstructed signal is generated based on a period of a signal, (Gu et al., Pg. 33593 Second-Full Paragraph - Third-Full Paragraph, Pgs. 33595 - 33596 § 3, Pg. 33596 Fig. 6 [“Pixel values of the phase-only holograms are regulated between -π and π to represent phase difference”]) wherein the preset range is a period range of a signal. (Gu et al., Pg. 33593 Second-Full Paragraph - § 2 First-Full Paragraph, Pg. 33594 Fig. 3, Pgs. 33595 - 33596 § 3, Pg. 33596 Fig. 6) Ramasubramonian et al. and Gu et al. are combinable because they are both directed towards techniques for encoding/compressing image data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ramasubramonian et al. with the teachings of Gu et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to substitute the video data to be decoded of Ramasubramonian et al. for the phase difference data of Gu et al. The phase difference data of Gu et al. could be substituted in place of the video data to be decoded of Ramasubramonian et al. using well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that, in the combination, the phase difference data of Gu et al. that is regulated between -π and π would be encoded and decoded using the base device of Ramasubramonian et al. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Ramasubramonian et al. that their video data to be encoded and decoded includes any data for processing a video including raw, uncoded video and encoded video, and that their encoder and decoder may operate according to High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) or extensions thereto, see at least page 3 paragraph 0026 and page 4 paragraph 0040 of Ramasubramonian et al. Moreover, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Gu et al. that HEVC intra-frame encoding can be used to compress their phase difference data, see at least page 33596 second-full paragraph of Gu et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the base device of Ramasubramonian et al. would encode and decode the phase difference data of Gu et al. between -π and π. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ramasubramonian et al. with Gu et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
- With regards to claim 2, Ramasubramonian et al. in view of Gu et al. disclose the method of claim 1. Ramasubramonian et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein an absolute value of the maximum value of the preset range is equal to an absolute value of the minimum value of the preset range. Pertaining to analogous art, Gu et al. disclose wherein an absolute value of the maximum value of the preset range is equal to an absolute value of the minimum value of the preset range. (Gu et al., Pg. 33592 Abstract, Pg. 33593 Third-Full Paragraph, Pgs. 33595 - 33596 § 3, Pg. 33596 Fig. 6, Pg. 33598 First-Full Paragraph, Pg. 33598 Fig. 9 [“Pixel values of the phase-only holograms are regulated between -π and π to represent phase difference.”])
- With regards to claim 3, Ramasubramonian et al. in view of Gu et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the generating the transformed reconstructed signal is determined whether to be performed based on a size of the initial reconstructed signal. (Ramasubramonian et al., Fig. 4, Pg. 6 ¶ 0060 - 0061, Pg. 12 ¶ ¶ 0123 - 0128)
- With regards to claim 4, Ramasubramonian et al. in view of Gu et al. disclose the method of claim 3, wherein in response to the size of the initial reconstructed signal being within the preset range, the generating the transformed reconstructed signal is determined not to be performed. (Ramasubramonian et al., Fig. 4, Pg. 6 ¶ 0060 - 0061, Pg. 12 ¶ ¶ 0123 - 0128)
- With regards to claim 5, Ramasubramonian et al. in view of Gu et al. disclose the method of claim 3, wherein the generating the transformed reconstructed signal is characterized by transforming the reconstructed signal by using a maximum value of the preset range based on a sign of the initial reconstructed signal in response to a size value of the initial reconstructed signal not being a value within the preset range. (Ramasubramonian et al., Fig. 4, Pg. 6 ¶ 0060 - 0061, Pg. 12 ¶ ¶ 0123 - 0128)
- With regards to claim 6, Ramasubramonian et al. in view of Gu et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the generating the transformed reconstructed signal is characterized by generating the transformed reconstructed signal from the initial reconstructed signal by using clipping function having a minimum value of the preset range and a maximum value of the preset range as input values. (Ramasubramonian et al., Fig. 4, Pg. 6 ¶ 0060 - 0061, Pg. 12 ¶ ¶ 0123 - 0128)
- With regards to claim 7, Ramasubramonian et al. in view of Gu et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the decoding method further comprises normalizing a range of a value of the initial reconstructed signal, in response to the value of the initial reconstructed signal is greater than the preset range. (Ramasubramonian et al., Fig. 4, Pg. 6 ¶ 0060 - 0061, Pg. 12 ¶ ¶ 0123 - 0128)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huarong Gu and Guofan Jin, “Phase-difference-based compression of phase-only holograms for holographic three-dimensional display”, Optics Express, Vol. 26, No. 26, Dec. 2018, pages 33592 - 33603, herein referred to as “Gu et al.”, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Ramasubramonian et al. U.S. Publication No. 2020/0014922 A1.
- With regards to claim 13, Gu et al. disclose the method of claim 8, wherein the method further comprising: decoding the transformed residual signal; (Gu et al., Pg. 33592 Abstract, Pg. 33593 Third-Full Paragraph, Pgs. 33595 - 33596 § 3, Pg. 33596 Fig. 6, Pg. 33598 First-Full Paragraph, Pg. 33598 Fig. 9) and generating an initial reconstructed signal based on the prediction signal and the residual signal. (Gu et al., Pg. 33592 Abstract, Pg. 33593 Third-Full Paragraph, Pgs. 33595 - 33596 § 3, Pg. 33596 Fig. 6, Pg. 33598 First-Full Paragraph, Pg. 33598 Fig. 9 [“The compressed grayscale images and binary images can be synthesized to recover the phase-only holograms”]) and generating a transformed reconstructed signal by transforming a value of the initial reconstructed signal to have a size value of a preset range. (Gu et al., Pg. 33592 Abstract, Pg. 33593 Third-Full Paragraph, Pgs. 33595 - 33596 § 3, Pg. 33596 Fig. 6, Pg. 33598 First-Full Paragraph, Pg. 33598 Fig. 9 [“The compressed grayscale images and binary images can be synthesized to recover the phase-only holograms” and “the compressed grayscale image and binary image can be synthesized to recover the phase difference using Eq. (8) and reconstruct the 3D object. Part of the recovered phase difference distribution regulated between 0 and 2π, i.e. the recovered hologram, of the dragon, is shown in Fig. 9(e).”]) Gu et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein the generating the transformed reconstructed signal is characterized by generating the transformed reconstructed signal from the initial reconstructed signal by using clipping function having a minimum value of the preset range and a maximum value of the preset range as input values. Pertaining to analogous art, Ramasubramonian et al. disclose decoding the transformed residual signal; (Ramasubramonian et al., Figs. 3, 4, 6 & 7, Pg. 6 ¶ 0058 - 0061, Pg. 11 ¶ 0117 - Pg. 12 ¶ 0123, Pg. 17 ¶ 0197 - 0199 and 0205) generating an initial reconstructed signal based on the prediction signal and the residual signal; (Ramasubramonian et al., Figs. 4 & 7, Pg. 6 ¶ 0058 - 0061, Pg. 12 ¶ 0123, Pg. 17 ¶ 0198 - 0199 and 0205) and generating a transformed reconstructed signal by transforming a value of the initial reconstructed signal to have a size value of a preset range, (Ramasubramonian et al., Fig. 4, Pg. 6 ¶ 0060 - 0061, Pg. 12 ¶ ¶ 0123 - 0128) wherein the generating the transformed reconstructed signal is characterized by generating the transformed reconstructed signal from the initial reconstructed signal by using clipping function having a minimum value of the preset range and a maximum value of the preset range as input values. (Ramasubramonian et al., Fig. 4, Pg. 6 ¶ 0060 - 0061, Pg. 12 ¶ ¶ 0123 - 0128) Gu et al. and Ramasubramonian et al. are combinable because they are both directed towards techniques for encoding/compressing image data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Gu et al. with the teachings of Ramasubramonian et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to substitute the compression and decompression algorithms of Gu et al. for the encoding and decoding techniques of Ramasubramonian et al. The encoding and decoding techniques of Ramasubramonian et al. could be substituted in place of the compression and decompression algorithms of Gu et al. using well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that, in the combination, the phase difference data of Gu et al. would be compressed and decompressed using the encoding and decoding techniques of Ramasubramonian et al. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Gu et al. that HEVC intra-frame encoding can be used to compress their phase difference data, see at least page 33596 second-full paragraph of Gu et al. Moreover, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Ramasubramonian et al. that their video data to be encoded and decoded includes any data for processing a video including raw, uncoded video and encoded video, and that their encoder and decoder may operate according to High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) or extensions thereto, see at least page 3 paragraph 0026 and page 4 paragraph 0040 of Ramasubramonian et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the phase difference data of Gu et al. would be compressed and decompressed using the encoding and decoding techniques of Ramasubramonian et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gu et al. with Ramasubramonian et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huarong Gu and Guofan Jin, “Phase-difference-based compression of phase-only holograms for holographic three-dimensional display”, Optics Express, Vol. 26, No. 26, Dec. 2018, pages 33592 - 33603, herein referred to as “Gu et al.”, in view of Ramasubramonian et al. U.S. Publication No. 2020/0014922 A1.
- The Examiner notes, with regards to claim 15, that the “bitstream generated by an image encoding method, wherein the image encoding method comprises:…” corresponds to nonfunctional descriptive material at least because the recording medium merely serves as a support for information or data, the bitstream generated by the image encoding method, and because the nonfunctional descriptive material is not functionally or structurally related to the recording medium. Limitations directed towards nonfunctional descriptive material are not given patentable weight, see at least MPEP § 2111.05. However, in order to expedite prosecution, the Examiner will examine the claim as if each and every limitation has patentable weight.
- With regards to claim 15, Gu et al. disclose an image encoding method, (Gu et al., Pg. 33592 Abstract, Pg. 33593 Line 1 - Third-Full Paragraph, Pgs. 33595 - 33596 § 3, Pg. 33596 Fig. 6, Pg. 33602 § 5) wherein the image encoding method comprises: generating a prediction signal for an input signal; (Gu et al., Pg. 33593 First-Full Paragraph - Third-Full Paragraph, Pg. 33594 Second-Full Paragraph, Pg. 33594 Fig. 3, Pgs. 33595 - 33596 § 3, Pg. 33595 Fig. 5, Pg. 33596 Fig. 6 [“For simplicity, the phase of the reference pixel is chosen to be zero”]) calculating an initial residual signal, which is a difference value between the input signal and the prediction signal; (Gu et al., Pg. 33593 Third-Full Paragraph, Pgs. 33595 - 33596 § 3, Pg. 33595 Fig. 5, Pg. 33596 Fig. 6 [“phase difference between two pixel values, Φ1 and Φ2, is defined as ΔΦ12 = Φ2 - Φ1 + 2mπ
∈
(-π, π]”]) generating a transformed residual signal by transforming a value of the initial residual signal to have a size value within a preset range; (Gu et al., Pg. 33593 Third-Full Paragraph, Pgs. 33595 - 33596 § 3, Pg. 33596 Fig. 6 [“Pixel values of the phase-only holograms are regulated between -π and π to represent phase difference”]) and encoding the transformed residual signal, (Gu et al., Pg. 33592 Abstract, Pg. 33593 Third-Full Paragraph, Pgs. 33595 - 33596 § 3, Pg. 33596 Fig. 6, Pg. 33602 § 5) wherein the transformed residual signal is generated based on a period of a signal, (Gu et al., Pg. 33593 Second-Full Paragraph - Third-Full Paragraph, Pgs. 33595 - 33596 § 3, Pg. 33596 Fig. 6 [“Pixel values of the phase-only holograms are regulated between -π and π to represent phase difference”]) wherein the preset range is a range of the period of the signal. (Gu et al., Pg. 33593 Second-Full Paragraph - § 2 First-Full Paragraph, Pg. 33594 Fig. 3, Pgs. 33595 - 33596 § 3, Pg. 33596 Fig. 6) Gu et al. fail to disclose expressly a recording medium storing a bitstream generated by the image encoding method. Pertaining to analogous art, Ramasubramonian et al. disclose a recording medium storing a bitstream generated by an image encoding method, (Ramasubramonian et al., Figs. 1, 3 & 4, Pg. 1 ¶ 0007 - 0008, Pg. 3 ¶ 0030 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0034, Pg. 4 ¶ 0037, Pg. 11 ¶ 0112 - 0117) wherein the image encoding method comprises: generating a prediction signal for an input signal; (Ramasubramonian et al., Figs. 3 & 6, Pg. 5 ¶ 0048 - 0051, Pg. 6 ¶ 0053 and 0058, Pg. 17 ¶ 0196 - 0197) calculating an initial residual signal, which is a difference value between the input signal and the prediction signal; (Ramasubramonian et al., Figs. 3 & 6, Pg. 5 ¶ 00042 and 0048, Pg. 6 ¶ 0053 and 0058, Pg. 9 ¶ 0089 - 0090, Pg. 17 ¶ 0196 - 0197) and encoding the transformed residual signal. (Ramasubramonian et al., Figs., 1, 3, 4 & 6, Pg. 3 ¶ 0030, Pg. 5 ¶ 0048, Pg. 6 ¶ 0053 - 0058, Pg. 9 ¶ 0089 - Pg. 10 ¶ 0096, Pg. 17 ¶ 0196 - 0197) Gu et al. and Ramasubramonian et al. are combinable because they are both directed towards techniques for encoding/compressing image data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Gu et al. with the teachings of Ramasubramonian et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the base device of Gu et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Ramasubramonian et al. applied to a comparable device. Utilizing a recording medium to store a bitstream generated by an image encoding method, as taught by Ramasubramonian et al., would enhance the base device of Gu et al. by allowing users to save the encoded data for later retrieval, processing and/or sharing. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Gu et al. that phase-only holograms can be compressed to reduce the amount of data for storage and transmission, see at least page 33595 section 3 pargraph 1 of Gu et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that a recording medium would be utilized to store the encoded data of the base device of Gu et al. so as to enable users to save the encoded data for later retrieval, processing and/or sharing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gu et al. with Ramasubramonian et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishii U.S. Publication No. 2013/0083893 A1; which is directed towards a radiation imaging apparatus and method, wherein a differential phase image having phase shift values wrapped into a range of -π to +π is calculated and processed.
Soner et al., “Realizing a Low-Power Head-Mounted Phase-Only Holographic Display by Light-Weight Compression”, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, Vol. 29, 2020, pages 4905 - 4515; which is directed towards the compression of phase-only holograms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC RUSH whose telephone number is (571) 270-3017. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Monday - 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, Andrew Bee can be reached at (571) 270 - 5183. 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.
/ERIC RUSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights