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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 15, and 18 are amended. Claims 2, 5, 10 and 17 are cancelled. Claims 21-24 are new.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 06/21/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-9, 11, 15-16, 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHOU (No. US-20220068236-A1 “Zhou”) in view of CHENG (No. US-20150029131-A1 “Cheng”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou teaches “Circuitry comprising:” (hardware elements (e.g., circuitry); Para 0027);
“a memory configured to store a plurality of entries respectively mapping a defined input value to a defined output value; and” (stored in memory; Para 0024); (respectively mapping an output value to a defined input value set; Abstract); (entry may map or associate an output value (e.g., a corrected value, a compensation value) with one or more input values (e.g., a defined input value set; Para 0024);
“processing circuitry configured to receive an input value having a value between first and second defined input values,” (and image processing circuitry; Para 0027); (a defined value of the first input variable 106 and a value of a second input variable 156 (e.g., a defined input value set); Para 0053);
“determine coefficients defining a curvature between first and second defined output values corresponding to the first and second defined input values” (curvature interpolation may include using a relationship between the existing entries 102 (e.g., between the respective values of the first output variables 104 and respective values of the first input variables 106 of the existing entries 102); Para 0048); (a defined value of a second output variable 154 of each existing entry 152 to a pair of a defined value of the first input variable 106 and a value of a second input variable 156 (e.g., a defined input value set); Para 0053); (initial curvature interpolations may be performed on any suitable number (e.g., three, four, five) of rows or columns of the existing entries 182 to determine a corresponding number of virtual entries; Para 0063);
“determine an output value based on the input value and the curvature defined by the coefficients,” (the equation of the curve 132 may be applied to the value of the first input variable 106 of the interpolated entry 130 in order to determine the corresponding value of the first output variable 104 of the interpolated entry 130; Para 0052); (curvature interpolation may be used to derive or interpolate an output value for input value sets; Para 0008);
“and apply the output value to image data to generate transformed image data.” (the value of the first output variable 104 of the interpolated entry 130 determined via curvature interpolation may be applied to the image data (e.g., to a pixel of the image data represented by the interpolated entry 130) to transform the image data; Para 0052);
However, while Zhou fails to teach “based on a reduction of differences between at least three defined output values that include the first and second defined output values and corresponding values of the curvature”.
Cheng teaches “based on a reduction of differences between at least three defined output values that include the first and second defined output values and corresponding values of the curvature,” (k can be any number larger than or equal to 3; Para 0057); (curve fitting problem is equivalent to finding a matrix C such that the Mean Squared Error (MSE) 1/nETE is minimal; Para 0059); (three elements are chosen for curve fitting; Para 0062); (calculating a plurality of coefficients for a curve or a surface that fits the fitting array with a minimized mean squared error; Para 0006);
Cheng discloses determining curve coefficients based on minimizing MSE between data points and the corresponding curve values which under BRI, satisfies the claimed subject matter of determining the coefficients based on a reduction of differences between the defined values and corresponding curvature values. Due to Cheng teaches the minimization of mean squared differences. Cheng teaches determining coefficients of a curve fitting from three or more data points by minimizing MSE. The three element data points correspond to the claimed at least three defined values. The coefficients that are used to minimize the MSE, which directly corresponds with the reduction of differences between the data and corresponding values.
It would be obvious to a person skilled in the art to determine the coefficients of Zhou’s curve using the MSE minimizing curve fitting technique of Cheng because the modification would employ Cheng’s MSE technique to Zhou’s curve and would not change Zhou’s main operation. It supplies a known mathematical technique for determining coefficients of the curve.
Zhou and Cheng are analogous art as they are related to image processing and look-up tables.
The motivation to have accurate output and curvature interpolation to better determine the output to the image data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Zhou by based on a reduction of differences between at least three defined output values that include the first and second defined output values and corresponding values of the curvature as taught by Cheng.
Regarding claim 3, while Zhou fails to teach the limitation, Cheng teaches “The circuitry of claim 1, wherein the differences comprise a mean square error (MSE) between the at least three defined output values and the corresponding values of the curvature.” (Matrix Z is a k-by-1 matrix, where k is the number of data points to be fitted. Each element in Z is the value of a data point.... Matrix C is a 5-by-1 matrix, the elements of which are C0, C1, C2, C3, and C4; Para 0073); (The surface fitting problem is equivalent to finding a matrix C such that the Mean Squared Error (MSE) 1/nETE is minimal; Para 0076);
Cheng discloses data points which correspond to the defined output values, a fitted surface or curve that corresponds to the claimed curvature, values of the fitted curve that correspond to the values of the curvature, error E corresponds to the differences between the values, and the equation corresponds to the claimed MSE. It would be obvious to a person skilled in the art to apply Cheng’s MSE fitting technique to Zhou’s curvature. This combination would provide a mathematical technique for obtaining Zhou’s coefficients while also improving the accuracy.
The motivation for the above is to have accurate calculation of MSE for an accuracy in the processing of curvature.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Zhou by differences comprise a mean square error (MSE) between the at least three defined output values and the corresponding values of the curvature as taught by Cheng.
Regarding claim 7, Zhou teaches “The circuitry of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry comprises image processing circuitry configured to use the plurality of entries to perform a color adjustment, a geometry adjustment, a scaling, or any combination thereof.” (LUT 100 (e.g., the LUT 70 illustrated with respect to FIG. 6) having various existing entries 102... the image data based on the first input variable 106, such as a color adjustment value, a geometry adjustment value, a scaling value, another suitable type of value, or any combination thereof; Para 0044);
Regarding claim 8, Zhou teaches “A display pipeline configured to process image data for display on an electronic display, wherein the display pipeline comprises:” (A display pipeline may retrieve and processes the image data before the image data is used to display the image frame on an electronic display; Para 0024);
“a lookup table (LUT) comprising a plurality of entries of the image data respectively mapping a defined input value to a defined output value; and” (a lookup table (LUT); Para 0005); (the LUT including entries respectively mapping an output value to a defined input value set; Abstract);
“processing circuitry configured to process the image data at least in part by:” (and image processing circuitry; Para 0027);
“receiving an input value having a value between first and second defined input values;” (a defined value of the first input variable 106 and a value of a second input variable 156 (e.g., a defined input value set); Para 0053);
“determining coefficients defining a curvature between first and second defined output values corresponding to the first and second defined input values” (curvature interpolation may include using a relationship between the existing entries 102 (e.g., between the respective values of the first output variables 104 and respective values of the first input variables 106 of the existing entries 102); Para 0048); (a defined value of a second output variable 154 of each existing entry 152 to a pair of a defined value of the first input variable 106 and a value of a second input variable 156 (e.g., a defined input value set); Para 0053); (initial curvature interpolations may be performed on any suitable number (e.g., three, four, five) of rows or columns of the existing entries 182 to determine a corresponding number of virtual entries; Para 0063);
“based on a reduction of differences between at least three defined output values that include the first and second defined output values and corresponding values of the curvature; and” (k can be any number larger than or equal to 3; Para 0057); (curve fitting problem is equivalent to finding a matrix C such that the Mean Squared Error (MSE) 1/nETE is minimal; Para 0059); (three elements are chosen for curve fitting; Para 0062); (calculating a plurality of coefficients for a curve or a surface that fits the fitting array with a minimized mean squared error; Para 0006);
“determining an output value based on the input value and the curvature defined by the coefficients.” (curvature interpolation may be used to derive or interpolate an output value for input value sets; Para 0008);
Claim 8 is directed to a display pipeline and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the image processing circuitry of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Zhou teaches “The display pipeline of claim 8, wherein the LUT is a one-dimensional LUT or a two-dimensional LUT.” (An LUT that indexes multiple inputs may be referred to as multi-dimensional table (e.g., a 2-D LUT); Para 0026); (LUT 100 is a one-dimensional LUT; Para 0046); (LUT 150 (e.g., a two-dimensional LUT); Para 0053);
Regarding claim 11, while Zhou fails to teach the limitation, Cheng teaches “The display pipeline of claim 8, wherein the differences comprise a mean square error (MSE) between the at least three defined output values and the corresponding values of the curvature.” (Matrix Z is a k-by-1 matrix, where k is the number of data points to be fitted. Each element in Z is the value of a data point.... Matrix C is a 5-by-1 matrix, the elements of which are C0, C1, C2, C3, and C4; Para 0073); (The surface fitting problem is equivalent to finding a matrix C such that the Mean Squared Error (MSE) 1/nETE is minimal; Para 0076);
Claim 11 is directed to a display pipeline and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the image processing circuitry of claim 3. Therefore, claim 11 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, Zhou teaches “A non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by processing circuitry, are configured to cause the processing circuitry to process image data at least in part by:” (software elements (e.g., a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions); Para 0027); (and image processing circuitry; Para 0027);
“receiving an input value of image data having a value between first and second defined input values of a plurality of entries respectively mapping a defined input value to a defined output value;” (a defined value of the first input variable 106 and a value of a second input variable 156 (e.g., a defined input value set); Para 0053); (respectively mapping an output value to a defined input value set; Abstract);
“determining coefficients defining a curvature between first and second defined output values corresponding to the first and second defined input values” (curvature interpolation may include using a relationship between the existing entries 102 (e.g., between the respective values of the first output variables 104 and respective values of the first input variables 106 of the existing entries 102); Para 0048); (a defined value of a second output variable 154 of each existing entry 152 to a pair of a defined value of the first input variable 106 and a value of a second input variable 156 (e.g., a defined input value set); Para 0053); (initial curvature interpolations may be performed on any suitable number (e.g., three, four, five) of rows or columns of the existing entries 182 to determine a corresponding number of virtual entries; Para 0063);
“based on a reduction of differences between at least three defined output values that include the first and second defined output values and corresponding values of the curvature; and” (k can be any number larger than or equal to 3; Para 0057); (curve fitting problem is equivalent to finding a matrix C such that the Mean Squared Error (MSE) 1/nETE is minimal; Para 0059); (three elements are chosen for curve fitting; Para 0062); (calculating a plurality of coefficients for a curve or a surface that fits the fitting array with a minimized mean squared error; Para 0006);
“determining an output value based on the input value of image data and the curvature defined by the coefficients.” (curvature interpolation may be used to derive or interpolate an output value for input value sets; Para 0008);
Claim 15 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the image processing circuitry of claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Zhou teaches “The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the input value comprises input image data, and the output value comprises adjusted image data.” (input value sets associated with the image data; Abstract); (associates different aspects of input image data with output image data; Para 0007); (output values to be applied to the image data; Para 0043); (adjust the image data; Para 0042);
Claim 16 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the image processing circuitry of claim 5. Therefore, claim 16 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, Zhou teaches “The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the processing circuitry comprises image processing circuitry configured to use the plurality of entries to perform a color adjustment, a geometry adjustment, a scaling, or any combination thereof.” (LUT 100 (e.g., the LUT 70 illustrated with respect to FIG. 6) having various existing entries 102... the image data based on the first input variable 106, such as a color adjustment value, a geometry adjustment value, a scaling value, another suitable type of value, or any combination thereof; Para 0044);
Claim 20 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the image processing circuitry of claim 7. Therefore, claim 20 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 21, Zhou teaches “The circuitry of claim 1, wherein the plurality of entries are unevenly spaced from one another with respect to the defined input values.” (the first input variable 106 of each existing entry 102 may be unevenly spaced from one another... step sizes between immediately adjacent existing entries 102 may be different from one another.; Para 0046);
Regarding claim 22, Zhou teaches “The display pipeline of claim 8, wherein the plurality of entries are unevenly spaced from one another with respect to the defined input values.” (the first input variable 106 of each existing entry 102 may be unevenly spaced from one another... step sizes between immediately adjacent existing entries 102 may be different from one another.; Para 0046);
Regarding claim 23, Zhou teaches “The circuitry of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the coefficients based on entries that are not immediately adjacent to the respective input value.” (existing entries 102 that are not immediately adjacent to one another or immediately adjacent to the interpolated entry 130 may be used; Para 0050);
Zhou discloses entries used for curvature interpolation not needing to be immediately adjacent to the to the interpolated entry. Zhou does teach regression curve from existing entries, but you can also substitute Cheng’s teaching of determining coefficients too.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHOU in view of CHENG and in further view of MILANFAR (No. US-20070047838-A1 “Milanfar”).
Regarding claim 4, while Zhou and Cheng fail to teach the limitation, Milanfar teaches “The circuitry of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the coefficients defining the curvature based on one or more convolutions.” (The coefficients {βj}j=0 N are the unknown parameters desired to estimate; Para 0047); (the B-spline regression is expressed as the linear combination of shifted spline functions... B-spline function is defined as a q+1 times convolution; Para 0048); (Least-squares is usually exploited to estimate the B-spline coefficients {βk}; Para 0049);
Milanfar discloses the conventional implementation of a fitted curvature using a convolution spline basis. Zhou supplies the LUT curvature interpolation and Cheng supplies the determining coefficients by minimizing MSE. It would be obvious to a person skilled in the art to implement the use of B line regression technique of Milanfar to have a convolution representation of a fitted curvature and a least squares technique to determine the coefficients. Applying this implementation to Zhou’s fit curve and the taught determining of coefficients of Cheng.
Zhou, Cheng and Milanfar are analogous art as they are related to image processing.
The motivation for the above to have accurate coefficients based on convolutions for an accurate processing circuitry.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Zhou and Cheng by configuring to determine the coefficients defining the curvature based on one or more convolutions as taught by Milanfar.
Claim(s) 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHOU in view of CHENG and in further view of Holland (No. US-20160307540-A1 “Holland”).
Regarding claim 6, while Zhou and Cheng fail to teach the limitation, Holland teaches “The circuitry of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to perform a gamma operation to: convert input image data from a linear space to generate the transformed image data in a gamma space or convert the input image data from the gamma space to generate the transformed image data in the linear space.” (The input pixel values may be described as being in “gamma space” when a gamma curve/correction has been applied to the input pixel values. After the gamma-encoded pixel values have been gamma decoded, then the pixel values may be described as being in “linear space”, wherein being in “linear space” indicates that the pixel values are linear with intensity; Para 0034);
Holland discloses gamma decoding of image values during display pipeline operations, thus getting a gamma space input, gamma decoding and outputting a linear space output. It would be obvious to a person skilled in the art to employ Zhou’s LUT circuitry with the gamma decoding operation of Holland.
Zhou, Cheng and Holland are analogous art as they are related to image processing circuitry and look-up tables.
The motivation for the above is to have accurate gamma operation for better display pipeline processing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Zhou and Cheng by convert input image data from a linear space to generate the transformed image data in a gamma space or convert the input image data from the gamma space to generate the transformed image data in the linear space as taught by Holland.
Regarding claim 19, Zhou further teaches “The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, are configured to cause the processing circuitry to perform a gamma operation to convert the image data from a linear space to output image data in a gamma space or convert the image data from the gamma space to output image data in the linear space.” (The image data may include various input data (e.g., multiple input value sets), such as data associated with a color space. The image data processing block(s) 46 may use the LUT to determine corresponding output data based on the input data, such as based on an input value set of the image data; Para 0066);
(color values of images to be represented by the image data may be mapped to image reproduction configurations of an output device; Para 0043);
Claim 19 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the image processing circuitry of claim 6. Claim 6 teaches everything of claim 19 and can also be rejected under the same rationale of Zhou, Cheng and Holland as claim 6.
Claim(s) 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHOU in view of CHENG and in further view of HICKMANN (No. US-20190384575-A1 “Hickmann”).
Regarding claim 12, while Zhou and Cheng fail to teach the limitation, Hickmann teaches “The display pipeline of claim 11, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the MSE between the at least three defined output values and the corresponding values of the curvature based on a left matrix division of a first convolution and a second convolution.” (the matrix processing unit 104 may perform element-wise operations on matrices, such as one or more of multiplication and division, addition; Para 0026);
Discloses a matrix processing unit that performs operations such as matrix division.
Zhou, Cheng and Hickmann are analogous arts as they are related to image processing circuitry and look up tables.
The motivation for the above is to have a more accurate determination of matrix division for a better processing circuitry.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Zhou and Cheng by configuring to determine the MSE between the at least three defined output values and the corresponding values of the curvature based on a left matrix division of a first convolution and a second convolution as taught by Hickmann.
Regarding claim 18, while Zhou and Cheng fail to teach the limitation, Hickmann teaches “The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, are configured to cause the processing circuitry to perform multiple iterations of determining the coefficients.” (input value's range is determined, a coefficient set (e.g., a0, a1, and a2) is selected based on the input value's offset within the range (thus different ranges may be associated with different series of coefficient sets and different sections of a range may be associated with different coefficient sets). The number of coefficient sets per range is flexible (e.g., 0 to N, where N is any suitable integer); Para 0018);
Hickmann discloses the multiple coefficients range for an input value and 0 to N which showcases the iterations in determining the coefficients.
The motivation for the above is to have accurate determination of coefficients when configuring the circuitry.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Zhou and Cheng by configuring to cause the processing circuitry to perform multiple iterations of determining the coefficients as taught by Hickmann.
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHOU in view of CHENG and in further view of HICKMANN in view of JOUPPI (No. US-20190362511-A1 “Jouppi”).
Regarding claim 13, while Zhou, Cheng and Hickmann fail to teach the limitation, Jouppi teaches “The display pipeline of claim 12, wherein the first convolution comprises a Cholesky decomposition and the second convolution comprises a convolution between a first matrix and a second matrix.” (An efficient linear optimizer (such as circuitry implementing a Cholesky decomposition algorithm); Para 0024);
(depth map may include a set of matrix computations; Para 0031);
(one or more chips designed for optimized matrix computations or for implementing a specific optimization algorithm; Para 0039); Discloses the Cholesky decomposition and a set of matrix computations which relate to the first and second matrices.
Zhou, Cheng, Hickmann and Jouppi are analogous arts as they are related to image processing.
The motivation for the above is to have a more accurate convolution for a more effective processing of the circuitry.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Zhou, Cheng and Hickmann by the first convolution comprising a Cholesky decomposition and the second convolution comprises a convolution between a first matrix and a second matrix as taught by Jouppi.
Regarding claim 14, while Zhou fails to teach the limitation, Hickmann further teaches “The display pipeline of claim 13, wherein the second matrix comprises the coefficients.” (the lookup table 112 may include a separate series of coefficient sets for a second range of the first function; Para 0029); Discloses a lookup table which closely relates to a matrix, this lookup table comprises of coefficients of a second range which relates to the second matrix.
The motivation for the above is to have a more accurate determination of coefficients in a matrix for a better processing circuitry.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Zhou and Cheng by the second matrix comprising the coefficients as taught by Hickmann.
Claim(s) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHOU in view of CHENG and in further view of TANG (No. US-20050050132-A1 “Tang”).
Regarding claim 24, while Zhou and Cheng fail to teach the limitation, Tang teaches “The circuitry of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to round the coefficients based on a number of curve calculation points between the first and second defined input values.” (the rounding operation (block 120) rounds the coefficient values a0 through a3 simultaneously; Para 0025); (uses independent rounding operations for the coefficient values a0 through a3, which results in a more accurate representation of the approximating polynomial; Para 0026); (the approximating polynomial coefficient values p0 through p3 to prevent loss of accuracy, resolution or overflow of subsequently calculated values; Para 0036);
Tang discloses rounding coefficients of an approximating polynomial to preserve approximation accuracy. It would be obvious to a person skilled in the art to implement the rounding of coefficients to Cheng’s teaching of coefficient and Zhou’s curvature processing circuitry.
Zhou, Cheng and Tang are analogous arts as they are related to image processing circuitry and coefficients.
The motivation for the above is to have accurate calculations of coefficients for better processing circuitry.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Zhou and Cheng by configuring to round the coefficients based on a number of curve calculation points between the first and second defined input values as taught by Tang.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg.1-2, filed 06/21/2026, with respect to Drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection of 03/23/2026 has been withdrawn.
The new replacement sheets filed 06/21/2026 of Drawings overcome the previous Drawings Objection, thus the Objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg.2, filed 06/21/2026, with respect to Specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection of 03/23/2026 has been withdrawn.
The amendments to the Specification filed 06/21/2026 address and amend the previous Objections to the Specifications, thus the Objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg.2-3, filed 06/21/2026, with respect to Claim have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Rejection of 03/23/2026 has been withdrawn.
Claims 2-3, 10-11, and 17-18 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claims 2, 10 and 17 have been canceled and claims 3, 11 and 18 were previously rejected by virtue of dependency on cancelled base claims 2, 10 and 17. Thus, the previous rejection of claims 3, 11, 18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg, filed 06/21/2026, with respect to Claims 1-4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Rejection of 03/23/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg.6-9, filed 06/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 8 and under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of ZHOU in view of CHENG.
Applicant argues that Zhou fails to disclose at least these recitations. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that Zhou cannot anticipate independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Moreover, based at least on their dependencies from allowable claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, as well as the recitations therein, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 5-7, 9, 15-16, and 19-20 are also patentable over Zhou.
Examiner replies that Cheng discloses determining curve coefficients based on minimizing MSE between data points and the corresponding curve values which under BRI. Satisfies the claimed subject matter of determining the coefficients based on a reduction of differences between the defined values and corresponding curvature values. Zhou calls for statistical regression while Cheng supplies a well-known implementation of that very operation to teach the claimed subject matter.
Applicant argues that claims 3 and 4 depend on claim 1, claims 11-14 depend on claim 8, and claim 18 depends on claim 15. Applicant argues that claims 1, 8, and 15 are allowable over Zhou. The other cited references do not cure the deficiencies of Zhou. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not established as to claims 3, 4, 11-14, and 18.
Examiner replies that due to the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15 under Zhou in view of Cheng, the dependent claims 3, 4, 11-14, and 18 are maintained at least by virtue of dependency on their respective base claims 1, 8 or 15.
Applicant argues that new claims 21-24, which recite additional features not disclosed by the cited references and respectfully request allowance of the new claims based at least on their dependencies from independent claims 1 and 8, as well as the elements therein.
Examiner replies that new claims 21-24 that have been rejected above, and due to the rejection of Claims 1 and 8 under Zhou in view of Cheng, the dependent claims 21-24 are maintained at least by virtue of dependency on their respective base claims 1 or 8.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIGITER D PROTAZI whose telephone number is (571)272-7995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
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, Said A Broome can be reached at 5712722931. 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.
/B.D.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2612
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612
