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 Amendment
Applicant's response to the last Office Action, filed on 7/21/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 11, 20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 11, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-19 are rejected based on their dependency.
The original specification does not describe the highlighted amended claim elements. The specification in paragraph 0063 states “perform a first level of matching on the lower-quality frame, and on determining that the match result is more than a threshold, perform a second level of match on the default, high-pixel data as a concluding step”;
“wherein performing the second level of matching only in response to determining that the match result is more than the threshold saves processing power.”
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, 2, 11, 12, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan et al. (US 2011/0262536) in view of Bonnitt et al. (US 2012/0045090).
Regarding claim 1, Jordan teaches a data storage device comprising: configured to:
generate a lower-quality version of an image frame (see claim 7, Jordan discusses downsampled version of an image);
perform a first level of matching to match the lower-quality version of the image frame with a target (see claim 7, Jordan discusses comparing the downsampled version of the at least one test image with the corresponding a target that is a downsampled at least one reference image stored in the reference database);
determine whether a match result is more than a threshold (see claim 7, Jordan discusses selecting downsampled reference images for which a level of similarity of said comparison is above a predefined threshold); and
only in response to determining that the match result is more than the threshold perform a second level of matching to match the image frame, instead of the lower-quality version of the image frame, with the target; wherein performing the second level of matching only in response to determining that the match result is more than the threshold saves processing power (see claim 7, Jordan discusses comparing the test image with the reference images).
Bonnitt teaches a memory (see para. 0018, 0022); and one or more processors, individually or in combination (see para. 0022).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Jordan with Bobbitt to derive at the invention of claim 1. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image processing.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Jordan in this manner in order to improve image processing by applying additional processing on image data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Jordan, while the teaching of Bobbitt continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of performing additional image processing when it is needed. The Jordan and Bobbitt systems perform image analysis, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 2, Jordan does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are further configured to store the lower-quality version of the image frame. However, Bonnitt teaches wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are further configured to store the lower-quality version of the image frame (see figure 1, figure 3, Bobbitt discusses storing data from either the low-quality analytic mode or high-quality analytic mode).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 2. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Jordan with Bobbitt to derive at the invention of claim 2. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image processing.
Claim 11 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 12 is rejected as applied to claim 2 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 20 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding data storage device.
Claims 3, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan et al. (US 2011/0262536) in view of Bonnitt et al. (US 2012/0045090) in view of Ono et al. (US 2007/0070408).
Regarding claim 3, Jordan and Bonnitt do not expressly disclose wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are further configured to use a different memory trim to store the lower-quality version of the image frame than used to store the image frame. However, Ono teaches wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are further configured to use a different memory trim to store the lower-quality version of the image frame than used to store the image frame (see figure 4, para. 0095, 0098, Ono discusses storing data of low quality images in different memory location).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Jordan and Bobbitt with Ono to derive at the invention of claim 3. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image processing.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Jordan and Bobbitt in this manner in order to improve image processing by applying additional processing on image data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Jordan and Bobbitt, while the teaching of Ono continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of performing additional image processing when it is needed. The Jordan, Bobbitt, and Ono systems perform image analysis, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 13, Jordan and Bonnitt do not expressly disclose wherein a different memory trim is used to store the lower-quality version of the image frame than used to store the image frame. However, Ono teaches wherein a different memory trim is used to store the lower-quality version of the image frame than used to store the image frame (see figure 4, para. 0095, 0098, Ono discusses storing data of low quality images in different memory location).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Jordan and Bobbitt with Ono to derive at the invention of claim 13. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image processing.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Jordan and Bobbitt in this manner in order to improve image processing by applying additional processing on image data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Jordan and Bobbitt, while the teaching of Ono continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of performing additional image processing when it is needed. The Jordan, Bobbitt, and Ono systems perform image analysis, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claims 4-6, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan et al. (US 2011/0262536) in view of Bonnitt et al. (US 2012/0045090) in view of Bert (US 2025/0077084).
Regarding claim 4, Jordan and Bonnitt do not expressly disclose wherein the area of the memory is chosen based on a data time limit to reduce garbage collection. However, Bert teaches wherein the area of the memory is chosen based on a data time limit to reduce garbage collection (see para. 0027-0028, Bert discusses storing data in virtual thread based data space constraints and time constraints to reduce garbage collection).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Jordan and Bobbitt with Bert to derive at the invention of claim 4. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image processing.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Jordan and Bobbitt in this manner in order to improve image processing by applying additional processing on image data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Jordan and Bobbitt, while the teaching of Bert continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of performing additional image processing when it is needed. The Jordan, Bobbitt, and Bert systems perform image analysis, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 5, Jordan and Bobbitt do not expressly disclose wherein the area of the memory is exposed to a host. However, Bert teaches wherein the area of the memory is exposed to a host (see figure 2, figure 3, figure 4, para. 0027-0028, Bert discusses memory addresses exposed to a host).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Jordan and Bobbitt with Bert to derive at the invention of claim 5. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image processing.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Jordan and Bonnitt in this manner in order to improve image processing by applying additional processing on image data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Jordan and Bonnitt, while the teaching of Bert continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of performing additional image processing when it is needed. The Jordan, Bonnitt, and Bert systems perform image analysis, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 6, Jordan and Bobbitt do not expressly disclose wherein the area of the memory is not exposed to a host. However, Bert teaches wherein the area of the memory is not exposed to a host (see figure 2, figure 3, figure 4, para. 0027-0028, Bert discusses storing data in virtual thread not exposed to a host).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Jordan and Bonnitt with Bert to derive at the invention of claim 6. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image processing.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Jordan and Bonnitt in this manner in order to improve image processing by applying additional processing on image data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Jordan and Bonnitt, while the teaching of Bert continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of performing additional image processing when it is needed. The Jordan, Bonnitt, and Bert systems perform image analysis, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 14 is rejected as applied to claim 4 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 15 is rejected as applied to claim 5 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claims 7, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan et al. (US 2011/0262536) in view of Bonnitt et al. (US 2012/0045090) in view of Kim (US 9,223,012).
Regarding claim 7, Jordan and Bobbitt do not expressly disclose wherein the threshold comprises an entropy threshold. However, Kim teaches wherein the threshold comprises an entropy threshold (see figure 4, claim 5, Kim discusses performing image quality processing based on an entropy threshold).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Jordan and Bonnitt with Kim to derive at the invention of claim 7. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image processing.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Jordan and Bonnitt in this manner in order to improve image processing by applying additional processing on image data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Jordan and Bonnitt, while the teaching of Kim continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of performing additional image processing when it is needed. The Jordan, Bonnitt, and Kim systems perform image analysis, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 16 is rejected as applied to claim 7 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claims 8, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan et al. (US 2011/0262536) in view of Bonnitt et al. (US 2012/0045090) in view of Gupta (US 2023/0114980).
Regarding claim 8, Jordan and Bobbitt do not expressly disclose wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are further configured to parse the image frame from a video stream. However, Gupta teaches wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are further configured to parse the image frame from a video stream (see para. 0054, Gupta discusses parsing video into plurality of input images).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Jordan and Bonnitt with Gupta to derive at the invention of claim 8. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image processing.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Jordan and Bonnitt in this manner in order to improve image processing by applying additional processing on image data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Jordan and Bonnitt, while the teaching of Gupta continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of performing additional image processing when it is needed. The Jordan, Bonnitt, and Gupta systems perform image analysis, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 17 is rejected as applied to claim 8 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claims 9, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan et al. (US 2011/0262536) in view of Bonnitt et al. (US 2012/0045090) in view of Kawai et al. (US 2015/0244925).
Regarding claim 9, Jordan and Bobbitt do not expressly disclose wherein the lower-quality version of the image frame is generated using pixel degradation. However, Kawai teaches wherein the lower-quality version of the image frame is generated using pixel degradation (see figure 16, figure 17, figure 20, para. 0177, Kawai discusses performing resolution degradation and a lowest resolution that was subject to pixel degradation processing).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Jordan and Bonnitt with Kawai to derive at the invention of claim 9. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image processing.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Jordan and Bonnitt in this manner in order to improve image processing by applying additional processing on image data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Jordan and Bonnitt, while the teaching of Kawai continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of performing additional image processing when it is needed. The Jordan, Bonnitt, and Kawai systems perform image analysis, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 18 is rejected as applied to claim 9 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claims 10, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan et al. (US 2011/0262536) in view of Bonnitt et al. (US 2012/0045090) in view of Geng et al. (US 2024/0037027).
Regarding claim 10, Jordan and Bobbitt do not expressly disclose wherein the memory comprises a three-dimensional memory. However, Geng teaches wherein the memory comprises a three-dimensional memory (see para. 0119, 0157, Geng discusses three dimensional memory).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Jordan and Bonnitt with Geng to derive at the invention of claim 10. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image processing.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Jordan and Bonnitt in this manner in order to improve image processing by applying additional processing on image data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Jordan and Bonnitt, while the teaching of Geng continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of performing additional image processing when it is needed. The Jordan, Bonnitt, and Geng systems perform image analysis, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 19 is rejected as applied to claim 10 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights