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 .
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 16-32 are rejected as being directed toward patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, under the “Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” issued on January 7, 2019 (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, 50).
The claims are directed to statutory categories of methods, apparata, articles of manufacture (under Step 1).
Upon analysis of the present claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation (under Step 2A, prong one), the claims appear to recite a judicial exception, an abstract idea, directed to logical concepts, mathematical relationships, following rules or instructions, mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and allusions to empirical determinations without limitation to particular empirical equations or algorithms) embodied in “a division operation … using the approximated output for the division operation” broadly applied in the context of “encoding or decoding a picture.” Note that the claims appear indifferent as to the specific practical application of the division, which is represented to be generically useful mathematical operation.
The claims include several categories of this abstract idea: information (samples, numerator, denominator, scale parameter, shift parameter, rounding parameter), collecting information (determining, deriving); outputting information (using the output), and/or analyzing information at a high degree of algorithmic generality (determining). These categories have been identified as abstract ideas by the Federal Circuit as summarized in Electric Power Group, LLC v. ALSTOM SA, 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016):
Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12, 127 S.Ct. 1746, 167 L.Ed.2d 737 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. 1354*1354 v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Commc'ns, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 Fed.Appx. 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589-90, 98 S.Ct. 2522, 57 L.Ed.2d 451 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67, 93 S.Ct. 253, 34 L.Ed.2d 273 (1972). And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Upon consideration of the record (under Step 2A, prong two), Examiner did not find that the additional elements of the present claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that judicial exception “in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” The additional elements, when considered individually or in a claim as a whole, “ computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform … A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions stored thereon which, when executed with at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: …”, do not seem to reflect a substantive improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field under the standards of the present judicial guidance; do not seem use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (general purpose computer executing a generally useful mathematical operation is not a particular machine); do not seem to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (performing a mathematical operation does not physically transform the apparatus to another state).
This is further evidenced in that the additional elements, [merely recite 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 (cause the at least one processor to:); adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (i.e. obtaining, analyzing, transforming, or outputting information for use with the judicial exception as in CyperSource and Mayo); do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. linked to a computer or other well-established activities in the art such as encoding or decoding an image).
Substantially similar subject matter has been found ineligible in In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969) (An abstract idea rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, for claiming a process of analyzing data generated by mass spectrographic analysis of a gas by selecting the data to be analyzed and by subjecting the data to a mathematical manipulation); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 U.S.P.Q. 673 (1972) (using common computing elements in conversion of numerical information is ineligible); Planet Bingo, LLC v VKGS LLC, 576 Fed. Appx. 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Storing preselected numbers for use in a computer application is ineligible); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F. 3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Encoding and decoding of an image is an abstract concept long utilized to transmit information, and addition of a mathematical equation that simply changes the data into other forms of data cannot render it patent eligible).
Finally, the claimed elements, when considered individually and in combination (under step 2B), do not seem to provide an Inventive Concept that is “significantly more” than the ineligible subject matter. The claims simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception, at a high level of generality, that is the claims indicate that a division operation (abstract idea) is used in the context of encoding or decoding an image (also an abstract idea) without describing a particular application.
The claims should be amended to include meaningful limitations within the technical field.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 16-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070183503 to Haskell (“Haskell”) in view of US 20200128243 to Wang (“Wang”).
Regarding Claim 16: “An apparatus, comprising
at least one processor, memory including computer program code, the memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform at least the following: (“computer systems have employed different video coder/decoder methods for compressing and encoding or decompressing and decoding digital video, respectively. A video coder/decoder method, in hardware or software implementation, is commonly referred to as a "CODEC".” Haskell, Paragraph 6.)
encoding or decoding a picture comprising a number of samples, (Samples in a picture can be pixels. See Specification, Page 7. Prior art teaches this: “block of pixels [samples] of any size” Haskell, Paragraph 19. See similarly in Wang, Paragraph 52.)
wherein a phase of the encoding or decoding comprises a division operation; (“a multimedia compression and encoding system with reduced requirements for division operations is disclosed.” Haskell, Paragraph 18. See similarly in Wang, Paragraph 168.)
determining a numerator and a denominator; (For example “Z5, 4=P*D5,4 / D5,1” Haskell, Paragraph 65. See similarly in Wang, Paragraph 164.)
determining an approximated output for the division operation between the numerator and the denominator, wherein the determining comprises: (For example “Z5, 4=P*D5,4 / D5,1 is rounded or truncated to the nearest integer,” and thus approximated. Haskell, Paragraph 65.
To the extent Haskell does not describe it’s division by two method as approximated, note that this is a well known technique to simplify digital division, as noted in Wang: “approximation of the division given that given that the “division” using right shift (>>) has the shift value (lookup_Sh) limited to be a multiple of 2.” Wang, Paragraph 168.
Where necessary, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Wang to use its method of division as an approximation as taught in Wang, in order to provide “reduced requirements for processor intensive division operation.” Haskell, Paragraph 2.
deriving a scale parameter using a piecewise approximation, (“can be approximated to any desired accuracy by scaling in such a way that the denominator is a power of two,” which is a piecewise approximation. Haskell, Paragraph 65. See similarly in Wang, Paragraph 168.)
deriving a shift parameter and (“With a power of two in the denominator division may be performed by simply shifting the bits in the value to be divided.” Haskell, Paragraph 65. See similarly in Wang, Paragraph 168.)
a rounding parameter; and (“Where the value P is a power of two and Z5,4=P*D5,4 / D5,1 is rounded or truncated to the nearest integer;” Haskell, Paragraph 65. See similarly in Wang, Paragraph 165.)
applying the scale parameter, the shift parameter, and the rounding parameter to the numerator; and (“can be approximated to any desired accuracy by scaling in such a way that the denominator is a power of two. (With a power of two in the denominator division may be performed by simply shifting the bits in the value to be divided. … is rounded or truncated to the nearest integer;)” thus rounding parameter is determined based on the shifting parameter which is determined based on required scaling which is determined based on the desired power of two. Haskell, Paragraph 65. This corresponds closely to the examples in Specification, Page 19.)
using the approximated output for the division operation in said phase of the encoding or decoding.” (“a multimedia compression and encoding system with reduced requirements for division operations is disclosed.” Haskell, Paragraph 18. See similarly in Wang, Paragraph 1. See similarly in Wang, Paragraph 168.)
Regarding Claim 17: “The apparatus according to claim 16, wherein to perform said phase of the encoding or decoding the apparatus upon execution is further caused to perform predicting at least one sample of the picture.” (“video coding standards, e.g., ISO MPEG or ITU H.264, use different types of predicted pixelblocks to encode video pictures.” Haskell, Paragraph 25.)
Regarding Claim 18: “The apparatus according to claim 16, wherein to perform said phase of the encoding or decoding the apparatus upon execution is further caused to perform filtering.” (“Here is an example of filtering in integers that avoids division by doing table lookup of a multiplication factor and shift factor.” Wang, Paragraph 163. See statement of motivation in Claim 16.)
Regarding Claim 19: “The apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the apparatus upon execution is further caused to perform applying an additional shift parameter to the numerator.” (“by a power of two scale value. This step scales up a numerator for a ratio.” Haskell, Paragraph 11. As noted in Claim 16, scaling by a power of two is equivalent as performing a shift on the digital value.)
20. (New) “The apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the apparatus upon execution is further caused to perform determining when the numerator, the denominator, the scale parameter and output parameter have different bit precision, whereupon the bit precision of the output and the scale parameter are used for determining the approximated output.” (This claim is not clear as to which of the four variables are compared, how bit precision is defined, or what are the steps involved in the determination. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, precision can embody a number of integer bits used to represent the variable. See Specification, Page 25. In this case, the number of bits of the numerator the denominator and the output would be different if the scale parameter is not zero; that is, the scale parameter would increase or reduce the number of bits in the numerator or the denominator thus making them have a different number of integer bits. Also, the output of the division operation would naturally have a smaller number of integer bits than the numerator. See Specification, Page 15.
Prior art teaches “the system determines a scaled ratio” in Haskell, Paragraph 11, and by making this determination, the system also determines when the numerator, denominator, scale parameter and output parameter have different bit precision.)
Regarding Claim 21: “The apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the apparatus upon execution is further caused to perform determining the scale parameter using one of the following: an interpolation operation; a polynomial process; or a linear interpolation.” (Prior art teaches: “the motion vectors as referenced to I1 and P5, respectively would be interpolated by MV2,1-MV5,1 * D2,1/D5,1” the latter portion defining the scale factor which can be determined based on this equation. See Haskell, Paragraph 47. Also note that the equation corresponds to both the linear interpolation and the polynomial interpolation.)
Regarding Claim 22: “The apparatus according to claim 21, wherein the apparatus upon execution is further caused to perform determining the scale parameter using the interpolation operation between at least two values which are determined based on a table look-up.” (Haskell teaches: “By storing the scaled ratio, all the estimated motion vectors can be calculated quickly with good precision since the scaled ratio saves significant bits and reducing the scale is performed by simple shifts … we calculate and store Z5,4 wherein Z5,4=P * D5,4 / D5,1” Haskell, Paragraphs 11, 66. In this case instead of storing the separate values P, D5,4 and D5,1, Haskell stores the final ratio.
Wang teaches storing separate values: “Here is an example of filtering in integers that avoids division by doing table lookup of a multiplication factor [first] and shift factor [second].” Wang, Paragraph 163. See statement of motivation in Claim 16.)
Regarding Claim 23: “The apparatus according to claim 22, wherein the apparatus upon execution is further caused to perform adjusting the scale parameter with a value to reduce a range of the denominator.” (“we calculate and store Z5,4 wherein Z5,4=P * D5,4 / D5,1 … then … MV5,4 = MV5,1 * Z5,1 / P … But since the P value has been chosen to be a power of two, the division by P is merely a simple shift of the bits.” Thus the scale factor Z5,1 is adjusted by a factor P, which is a denominator reduced in range to be a power of two. See Haskell, Paragraph 66.)
Claim 24, “A method,” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 16, because the apparatus of Claim 16 implements the method steps of Claim 24.
Claims 25-31 are rejected for reasons stated for Claims 17-23 respectively.
Claim 32 “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions stored thereon which, when executed with at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: …” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 16, and because prior art teaches: “A computer readable medium storing sets of instructions that are executable by one or more processors, the sets of instructions comprising a set of instructions for:” Haskell, Claim 60.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483