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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 16 December 2024 for application number 18/875,669. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, Claims.
Claims 1-13, 30-36, and 40-46 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on the following dates are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are being considered by the Examiner: 8/15/25.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11, 30-32, 41-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Philip et al. (NPL titled “Multimedia Networking and Communication: Principles and Challenges”).
Regarding claim 1, Philip discloses a method for encoding data defining an image (section 2.3), the method comprising the steps of:
(a) splitting the image into a number of image portions (p. 22, “slices”); and
(b) processing each of the image portions, the processing including the steps of:
i. segmenting the portion into image blocks, the image blocks in the portion having a uniform block size (p. 99, “a frame is divided into a number of macroblocks (MB), each containing a luminance block (of size 16x16) and two chrominance blocks (e.g., 8x8 Cb and 8x8 Cr));
ii. applying a frequency-based transform to each of the image blocks, thereby providing transformed image data in which the image data is represented as coefficients defining a linear combination of predetermined basis functions having different spatial frequencies (p. 38, “DCT transform”; fig. 2.4);
iii. quantising the coefficients (fig. 2.4); and
iv. converting the quantised coefficients into bits of binary code (fig. 2.4, “Entropy coding”);
the processing for each of the image portions being independent of the other image portions (p. 22, “slices are the basic output of the video encoder and form an independently accessible entity”).
Regarding claim 2, see teachings of claim 1. Philip further discloses further comprising the step of concatenating the bits of binary code for each of the image portions (section 2.4, bitstream).
Regarding claim 3, see teachings of claims 1-2. Philip further discloses further comprising the step of interleaving the concatenated bits of binary code into a number of data packets (fig. 2.4, packets).
Regarding claim 4, see teachings of claims 1-3. Philip further discloses further comprising the step of transmitting the interleaved concatenated bits of binary code (fig. 2.3, sender).
Regarding claim 5, see teachings of claim 1. Philip further discloses further comprising the step of interleaving the bits of binary code for each of the image portions, and transmitting the interleaved bits of binary code for each of the image portions independently of the other image portions (p. 22, the encoder can decide to allocate either a fixed number of MBs or a fixed number of bits to a slice. The later mode of operation, with a predefined data size of a slice).
Regarding claim 6, see teachings of claim 1. Philip further discloses the method further comprising the step of providing an image portion header for each of the image portions (p. 22, slice header).
Regarding claim 7, see teachings of claims 1 and 6. Philip further discloses wherein the image portion header comprises a number of bits encoding a size of said each of the image portions (section 2.4.2).
Regarding claim 8, see teachings of claims 1 and 6. Philip further discloses wherein the image portion header comprises a number of bits encoding one or more encoding parameters applied during encoding of said each of the image portions (p. 22, a slice header, which contains syntactic and semantic resynchronization information).
Regarding claim 11, see teachings of claim 1. Philip further discloses wherein the step of quantising the coefficients is performed at a quantisation level that determines a resolution of quantised data, and wherein the quantisation level is uniform for all the blocks in any one of the portions (section 2.5.2, uniform quantizer).
Regarding claim 30, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. The claims recites the decoding method which is the inverse process of the encoding method of claim 1. The encoding/decoding differences are routine functional counterparts and do not render the pending claims patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 31, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6. The claims recites the decoding method which is the inverse process of the encoding method of claim 6. The encoding/decoding differences are routine functional counterparts and do not render the pending claims patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 32, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7. The claims recites the decoding method which is the inverse process of the encoding method of claim 7. The encoding/decoding differences are routine functional counterparts and do not render the pending claims patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 41, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 42, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 43, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 44, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 45, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 30.
Regarding claim 46, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 30.
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 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.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Philip et al. (NPL titled “Multimedia Networking and Communication: Principles and Challenges”) in view of Harmanci et al. (US 2009/0060362).
Regarding claim 9, see teachings of claim 1. Philip does not explicitly disclose wherein, for each portion, the uniform block size is selected from a set of predetermined block sizes.
In the same field of endeavor, Harmanci discloses wherein, for each portion, the uniform block size is selected from a set of predetermined block sizes (par. 50).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with motivation to modify Philip to include the teachings of Harmanci in order to optimize transforms (Harmanci, par. 50).
Regarding claim 10, see teachings of claim 1. Philip does not explicitly disclose wherein the uniform block size for a first of the image portions is different to the uniform block size for a second of the image portions.
In the same field of endeavor, Harmanci discloses wherein the uniform block size for a first of the image portions is different to the uniform block size for a second of the image portions (par. 50).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with motivation to modify Philip to include the teachings of Harmanci in order to optimize transforms (Harmanci, par. 50).
Regarding claim 12, see teachings of claims 1 and 11. Philip does not explicitly disclose wherein the quantisation level for a first of the image portions is different to the quantisation level for a second of the image portions.
In the same field of endeavor, Harmanci discloses wherein the quantisation level for a first of the image portions is different to the quantisation level for a second of the image portions (par. 50).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with motivation to modify Philip to include the teachings of Harmanci in order to optimize transforms (Harmanci, par. 50).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 33-36, 40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 13, none of the references, alone or in combination, discloses wherein the image comprises a region of interest, the method further comprising the step of identifying a first of the image portions in which first image portion the region of interest is found; and a second of the image portions in which second image portion the region of interest is not found, and encoding the first image portion using a smaller block size and/or a finer quantisation level than those used for the second image portion (p. 23, ROI; and common knowledge).
Regarding claims 33-35, none of the references, alone or in combination, discloses wherein the step of converting the said each of the sections of binary code into blocks of data comprises identifying, in the sections of binary code, bits representing component term a vector encoding a predetermined selection of the coefficients, and checking that a sum of the components is equivalent to a predetermined value parameter K.
Regarding claim 36, none of the references, alone or in combination, discloses further comprising the steps of:(i) identifying, from the coefficients, a plurality of reference coefficients and a plurality of predictions, each prediction being associated with a reference coefficient or a prior prediction;(ii) determining a coefficient from a prediction by adding the prediction to its associated reference coefficient or prior prediction; and(iii) imposing a cap on a magnitude of the predictions.
Regarding claim 40, none of the references, alone or in combination, discloses further comprising the step of identifying, in the bit stream bitstream, an image header string; determining the number of times the image header string is repeated; and, for each bit in the image header string, applying a voting procedure to determine a value of each said bit.
Prior Art not relied upon: Please refer to the references listed in attached PTO-892, which are not relied upon for the claim rejections, since these references are pertinent to the disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-5262. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri, 6AM - 2PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on 571-272-7384. 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.
/NGUYEN T TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights