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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
For 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable medium is not patentable when it stores only data, because, without instructions/programming software, it does not have any functional relationship with the intended computer system. Any prior art having computer-readable data recording medium can be used to reject this claim.
For 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection:
A picture header is metadata.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art doesn’t teach repeating the metadata string a number of times, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). THOUKYDIDES discloses a form of repetition code N-modular redundancy ([0069] N-modular redundancy is a form of repetition code, the repetition codes take advantage of the repetition, resulting in fewer retransmissions). It is obvious to modify the invention of Hannuksela according to the invention of THOUKYDIDES, to apply the technique of repetition codes, and to repeat the metadata string a number of times, in order to correctly receive the data (THOUKYDIDES [0039]).
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)(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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kadono et al. (Pub. No. US 2004/0076237 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kadono discloses One or more non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a program ([0247] recording a program implementing the steps of … method to a floppy disk or other computer-readable data recording medium; [0251]; [0257] The software for … can be stored to any computer-readable data recording medium (such as a CD-ROM disc, floppy disk, or hard disk drive)).
See MPEP 2111.05 (III), when determining the scope of the claims, “data defining an image” is not given patentable weight, because “data defining an image” is non-functional descriptive material. It is merely static data that imparts no function (unlike an executable computer program which performs a function). It does not have any functional relationship with the intended computer system. Thus, the computer-readable data recording medium disclosed in Kadono meets claim 7.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannuksela (US 20050185719 A1) in view of THOUKYDIDES et al. (US 20170185474 A1).
Regarding claim 1. Hannuksela discloses A method for encoding data defining an image (abstract, A method of video encoding), the method including the step of providing metadata associated with the image (abstract, the picture header for the frame; [0008] the most vital information is gathered in the picture header), encoding the metadata into binary code to form a metadata string ([0018] The coded parameter data is arranged in a so-called picture header; [0022] picture headers in video bitstreams), and repeating the metadata string (abstract, repeating part, but not all, of the data. The repeated part including the picture header for the frame; [0023] a repeat of the picture header for at least INTRA-frames; [0058] the encoder is arranged to send repeats of the picture header).
However, Hannuksela doesn’t explicitly disclose repeating the metadata string a number of times.
THOUKYDIDES discloses repeating a frame a number of times ([0057] if at least three probe response frames have been received from a particular BSS then it is possible to implement N-modular redundancy (majority logic) decoding as a simple form of forward error correction (FEC), to recover portions of the original frame; figure 11, [0075] Multiple probe response frames from the AP are collected using a wireless sniffer. FIG. 11 is a diagram illustrating the initial 65 octets of seven frames. Partial packet recovery is performed across these received frames using 7-modular redundancy).
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 invention of Hannuksela according to the invention of THOUKYDIDES, to repeat the metadata string a number of times, in order to correctly receive the data (THOUKYDIDES [0039]).
Regarding claim 2. Hannuksela discloses The method according to claim 1, further comprising the steps of:
segmenting the image into image blocks, each image block in a portion having a uniform block size ([0012] Picture data is coded on a block-by-block basis, each block representing 8.times.8 pixels of luminance or chrominance);
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 (figure 4, unit 103 DCT, [0055] In INTRA-mode, the video signal from the input 101 is input directly to a DCT transformer 103 which transforms the pixel data into DCT coefficients; [0056] In INTER mode, The prediction error is DCT transformed);
quantising the coefficients ([0055] The DCT coefficients are then passed to a quantiser 104 which quantises the coefficients; [0056] The prediction error is DCT transformed and quantised); and
converting the quantised coefficients into binary code ([0057] The video coder 100 produces header information (e.g. a temporal reference flag TR 112a to indicate the number of the frame being coded, an INTRA/INTER flag 112b to indicate the mode of coding performed (I or P/B), a quantising index 112c (i.e. the details of the quantiser used), the quantised DCT coefficients 112d and the motion vectors 112e for the picture being coded. These are coded and multiplexed together by the variable length coder (VLC) 113).
Regarding claim 3. Hannuksela in view of THOUKYDIDES discloses The method according to claim 2, wherein the metadata string is repeated at least three times (Hannuksela [0058] the encoder is arranged to send repeats of the picture header; THOUKYDIDES figure 11, [0075] Multiple probe response frames from the AP are collected using a wireless sniffer. FIG. 11 is a diagram illustrating the initial 65 octets of seven frames. Partial packet recovery is performed across these received frames using 7-modular redundancy).
The same motivation has been stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4. Hannuksela in view of THOUKYDIDES discloses The method according to claim 2, wherein the metadata string is repeated at least five times (Hannuksela [0058] the encoder is arranged to send repeats of the picture header; THOUKYDIDES figure 11, [0075] Multiple probe response frames from the AP are collected using a wireless sniffer. FIG. 11 is a diagram illustrating the initial 65 octets of seven frames. Partial packet recovery is performed across these received frames using 7-modular redundancy).
The same motivation has been stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5. Hannuksela discloses A method of decoding a bitstream to reconstruct an image (abstract, A method of decoding an encoded video signal), the method comprising the steps of identifying, in the bitstream, a metadata string containing bits relating to metadata associated with the image (abstract, receiving coded data representing frames of a video signal; examining the coded data to detect header data); determining the metadata string that is repeated (abstract, detecting a repeat of the header data).
However, Hannuksela doesn’t explicitly disclose determining a number of times the metadata string is repeated; and, for each bit in the metadata string, applying a voting procedure to determine a value of each said bit.
THOUKYDIDES discloses determining a number of times a frame is repeated ([0057] if at least three probe response frames have been received from a particular BSS then it is possible to implement N-modular redundancy (majority logic) decoding as a simple form of forward error correction (FEC), to recover portions of the original frame; figure 11, [0075] Multiple probe response frames from the AP are collected using a wireless sniffer. FIG. 11 is a diagram illustrating the initial 65 octets of seven frames. Partial packet recovery is performed across these received frames using 7-modular redundancy; [0059]); and, for each bit in the frame, applying a voting procedure to determine a value of each said bit ([0067] The N-modular redundancy decoding can be applied to arbitrary groupings of bits. The corresponding bits in each of the received versions of the frame are compared, and the value for each group that occurs in the most versions is selected; [0068] Use of a smaller group size, down to individual bits, will increase the probability of being able to recover the frame from a certain number of received versions).
The same motivation has been stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6. The same analysis has been stated in claim 1.
Furthermore, Hannuksela discloses the image is part of a series of image frames (abstract, A method of video encoding), each of the frames being encoded according to the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7. The same analysis has been stated in claim 1 and claim 5.
Regarding claim 8. The same analysis has been stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9. The same analysis has been stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10. Hannuksela in view of THOUKYDIDES discloses The method according to claim 2, wherein the metadata string is repeated at least seven times (Hannuksela [0058] the encoder is arranged to send repeats of the picture header; THOUKYDIDES figure 11, [0075] Multiple probe response frames from the AP are collected using a wireless sniffer. FIG. 11 is a diagram illustrating the initial 65 octets of seven frames. Partial packet recovery is performed across these received frames using 7-modular redundancy).
The same motivation has been stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11. The same analysis has been stated in claim 5.
Regarding claim 12. The same analysis has been stated in claim 5.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannuksela (US 20050185719 A1) in view of THOUKYDIDES et al. (US 20170185474 A1) as applied above in claim 1, and further in view of Dean et al. (US 7690004 B1).
Regarding claim 15. (New) Dean discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the metadata is provided from an image sensor which captured the image or a processor associated with the image sensor (column 9 lines 26-43, The image acquisition facility 18 in addition to transferring commands and requests from the application 16 across the communication channel 74 to the image acquisition device 38 and transferring image data from the image acquisition device 38 across the communication channel 74 to the application 16 is capable of transferring metadata on the image data).
Regarding claim 16. (New) Dean discloses The method according to claim 15, wherein the metadata includes at least one of a timestamp indicating a time at which the image was captured; a frame number indicating a relative position of the image in a sequence of images; information relating to how the image was captured or information identifying the image sensor that captured the image and parameters applied to the image sensor during capture (column 9 lines 26-43, the image acquisition facility 18 transfers metadata on each image, frame, such as a frame timestamp and a frame count).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannuksela (US 20050185719 A1) in view of THOUKYDIDES et al. (US 20170185474 A1) and Dean et al. (US 7690004 B1) as applied above in claim 15, and further in view of Falzone et al. (US 20260017042 A1).
Regarding claim 17. (New) Falzone discloses The method according to claim 15, wherein the information relating to how the image was captured comprises a waveband in which the image was captured ([0060] The attributes of the thermal image can include frequency, wavelength within the thermal image itself or included as metadata with the image).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannuksela (US 20050185719 A1) in view of THOUKYDIDES et al. (US 20170185474 A1) as applied above in claim 1, and further in view of WISE (US 20190149751 A1).
Regarding claim 18. (New) WISE discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the metadata comprises information relating to preliminary image processing performed ([0076] the received image data coordinates are sent along with the embedded ROI metadata).
Regarding claim 19. (New) WISE discloses The method according to claim 18, wherein the information relating to preliminary image processing performed comprises information identifying a region of interest in the image ([0076] the received image data coordinates are sent along with the embedded ROI metadata).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOLAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-7580. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. to Fri. 9am-5pm.
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, SATH V. PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at (571) 272-7455. 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.
/XIAOLAN XU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights