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
The United States Patent & Trademark Office appreciates the application that is submitted by the inventor/assignee. The United States Patent & Trademark Office reviewed the following application and has made the following comments below.
Priority
This application claims benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) of 202311318563.0, filed in China on 10/11/2023.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When reviewing independent claim 1, and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1-12 are held to claim an abstract idea without reciting elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Examiner will analyze Claim 1, and similar rationale applies to independent Claim/s 10. The rationale, under MPEP § 2106, for this finding is explained below:
The claimed invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception, as defined below. The following two step analysis is used to evaluate these criteria.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
When examining the claim under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner interprets that the claims is related to a machine since the claim is directed to an image processing device.
Step 2a, Prong 1: Does the claim wholly embrace a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception?
The Examiner interprets that the judicial exception applies since Claim 1 limitation of a frame compression circuit for first data, an image processing circuit, generating a second data, an image encoding circuit reading the second data, and controller, outputting the first data and the third data are directed to an abstract idea. The claim is related to mathematical relationship by organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two.
Step 2a, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The Examiner interprets that Claim 1 limitation does not provide additional elements or combination of additional elements to a practical application since the claim/s are insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g). In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
Step 2b: If a judicial exception into a practical application is not recited in the claim, the Examiner must interpret if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner interprets that the Claims do not amount to significantly more since the Claims are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Furthermore, the generic computer components of the computer recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Claims 2-9, 11, 12 depending on the independent claim/s include all the limitation of the independent claim. The Examiner finds that Claim 2-9, 11, 12 does not states significantly more since the claim only recites further steps of compressing data and not doing anything with the data.
Thus, Claims 1-12 recite the same abstract idea and therefore are not drawn to the eligible subject matter as they are directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
Therefore, the Examiner interprets that the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jun et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0344900, hereafter referred to as Jun).
In regards to Claim 10, Jun teaches an image processing method, comprising:
compressing input image data to generate first data (paragraph 41, Jun teaches compression module), and storing the first data to a first storage space of a memory (paragraph 33, Jun teaches the first data and coverts the first into a second data.);
performing image processing on the input image data to generate second data, and storing the second data to a second storage space of the memory (The examiner finds that claim language broadly since claim does not define the type of data; paragraph 42-paragraph 45, Jun teaches a new second data compression that is updated.);
reading the second data from the second storage space, encoding the second data to generate third data, and storing the third data to the first storage space (The examiner finds that claim language broadly since claim does not define the type of data; paragraph 49, paragraph 50, Jun teaches the third data is generate by FBC and is stored in the memory.); and
outputting the first data and the third data (The examiner finds that claim language broadly since claim does not define the type of data; paragraph 41-paragraph 45, paragraph 48-paragraph 50, Jun teaches generating the first, and third data) from the first storage space (paragraph 54, paragraph 58, Jun).
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(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jun et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0344900, hereafter referred to as Jun) in view of Karandikar et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2024/0095962, hereafter referred to as Karandikar)
Regarding Claim 1, Jun teaches an image processing device, comprising:
a memory, comprising a first storage space and a second storage space (paragraph 31, Jun teaches memory storage.); a frame compression circuit (paragraph 41, Jun teaches compression module), generating first data based on input image data and storing the first data to the first storage space (paragraph 33, Jun teaches the first data and coverts the first into a second data.);
an image processing circuit (paragraph 31, Jun teaches a camera system, which the Examiner interprets there is a circuit system), generating second data based on the input image data and storing the second data to the second storage space (The examiner finds that claim language broadly since claim does not define the type of data; paragraph 42-paragraph 45, Jun teaches a new second data compression that is updated.);
an image encoding circuit (paragraph 56, Jun teaches encoder), reading the second data from the second storage space, encoding the second data to generate third data, and storing the third data to the first storage space (The examiner finds that claim language broadly since claim does not define the type of data; paragraph 49, paragraph 50, Jun teaches the third data is generate by FBC and is stored in the memory.); and a controller (paragraph 61, paragraph 62, Jun teaches first mode selector ), outputting the first data and the third data (The examiner finds that claim language broadly since claim does not define the type of data; paragraph 41-paragraph 45, paragraph 48-paragraph 50, Jun teaches generating the first, and third data) from the first storage space (paragraph 54, paragraph 58, Jun); wherein the frame compression circuit and the image encoding circuit access the first storage space through a first connection port (paragraph 56, paragraph 57, paragraph 58, Jun teaches system bus for the storing and access memory.).
Jun does not explicitly disclose image processing circuit accesses the second storage space through a second connection port different from the first connection port.
Karandikar is in the same field of art of image compression of image frames. Further, Karandikar teaches image processing circuit accesses the second storage space through a second connection port different from the first connection port (paragraph 69-paragraph 71, Karandikar teaches the different storage memories. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Jun by incorporating the into the middle processing of Jun the different memory locations and compression techniques that is taught by Karandikar, to make the invention that captures images, and generates four different data of compressions at different memory locations for reducing image size; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since a compression module for reducing the size of the moving image data is needed (Jun, paragraph 3), and the image data may be processed through several processing blocks for enhancing the image before the image data is displayed to a user on a display or transmitted to a recipient in a message. Each of the processing blocks consumes additional power proportional to the amount of image data, or number of megapixels, in the image capture. The additional power consumption may shorten the operating time of an image capture device using battery power, such as a mobile phone (paragraph 4, Karandikar).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In regards to Claim 4, Jun in view of Karandikar discloses wherein the input image data comprises a frame, and the controller configures the image encoding circuit to access the first storage space in response to an interrupt signal corresponding to the frame (paragraph 61, paragraph 62, Jun teaches first mode selector receive a signal from the multimedia Ip.).
In regards to Claim 5, Jun in view of Karandikar discloses wherein the controller configures the frame compression circuit to access the first storage space in response to an interrupt signal corresponding to the third data (paragraph 74-paragraph 77, paragraph 79, Karandikar teaches using a multiplex for controlling the different types of block arrangements and others.).
In regards to Claim 6, Jun in view of Karandikar discloses wherein a data size of the first data is greater than a data size of the third data (paragraph 69, Karandikar teaches third data is small size than the first, thus saving power.).
In regards to Claim 8, Jun in view of Karandikar discloses a frame decompression circuit, generate fourth data based on the first data when the controller outputs the first data from the first storage space (paragraph 70, paragraph 71, Karandikar).
In regards to Claim 9, Jun in view of Karandikar discloses an interface circuit, transmitting the fourth data and the third data to at least one host device (paragraph 70, paragraph 71, Karandikar).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jun in view of Karandikar in view of Tsuda et al (U.S. Patent Pub No. 2009/0274365, hereafter referred to as Tsuda).
Regarding Claim 7, Jun in view of Karandikar teaches compression of the images using different methods.
Jun in view of Karandikar does not explicitly disclose wherein the first data is compressed raw image data, and the second data is a Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) image file.
Tsuda is in the same field of art of compression of images. Further, Tsuda teaches wherein the first data is compressed raw image data, and the second data is a Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) image file (paragraph 70, Tsuda reading raw image data and the compressing to make JPEG data.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Jun in view of Karandikar by incorporating the raw image and JPEG images that is taught by Tsuda, to make the invention that performs image process to compress the images and different memory locations; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since processing speeds of respective parts are different from each other, there has been a problem in that the entire processing speed is determined by slower processing (paragraph 2, Tsuda).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, 3, 11, 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Wang et al U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0400980.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ONEAL R MISTRY whose telephone number is (313)446-4912. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm.
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.
/ONEAL R MISTRY/
Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights