CTNF 18/899,688 CTNF 97268 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections 07-05-05 Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. 07-34-03 AIA The term “ low ” in claim s 5 and 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ low ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claims lack a standard or reference, to which a resolution can be compared. For the prior art purposes, the term “low” has been interpreted as lower, reduced, decreased. Grace Period Inventor-Originated Disclosure A disclosure made within the grace period is not prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) if it is apparent from the disclosure itself that it is an inventor-originated disclosure. Specifically, Office personnel may not apply a disclosure as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) if the disclosure: (1) was made one year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; (2) names the inventor or a joint inventor as an author or an inventor; and (3) does not name additional persons as authors on a printed publication or joint inventors on a patent. This means that in circumstances where an application names additional persons as joint inventors relative to the persons named as authors in the publication (e.g., the application names as joint inventors A, B, and C, and the publication names as authors A and B), and the publication is one year or less before the effective filing date, it is apparent that the disclosure is a grace period inventor disclosure, and the publication is not prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). If, however, the application names fewer joint inventors than a publication (e.g., the application names as joint inventors A and B, and the publication names as authors A, B and C), it would not be readily apparent from the publication that it is an inventor-originated disclosure and the publication would be treated as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) unless there is evidence of record that an exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) applies. Here, the publication of us patent application publication no. 2023/0078235 to Cismas et al. names, in addition to the two inventors of the current application, two additional persons as its inventors. It is not readily apparent that the publication is an inventor-originated disclosure, and in the absence of evidence that an exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) applies, the publication would be treated as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 4, 6, 7-10, 13, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over us patent application publication no. 2023/0078235 to Cismas et al. (hereinafter Cismas) in view of us patent application publication no. 2006/0220934 to Stromberg et al. (hereinafter Stromberg) . For claims 1, 10 and 19, Cismas as applied teaches a method for compression of data, the method comprising: receiving sensor data comprising a plurality of frames characterized by a relative invariance of noise data detected between consecutively received frames from the plurality of frames (see, e.g., pars. 25, 38 and 46 and FIGS. 1 and 3, which teach receiving sensor data including a plurality of frames) , wherein each frame from the plurality of frames is divided into one or more planes (see, e.g., pars. 25, 38 and 46 and FIGS. 1, 3 and 4, which teach splitting each frame into one or more planes) ; accessing a plane of sensor data (see, e.g., pars. 29-34 and 38 and FIGS. 2A-C and 3, which accessing a plane of sensor data) , wherein the plane comprises a plurality of rows (see, e.g., pars. 31-39 and FIG. 2C, which teach that the plane includes a plurality of slices including rows) ; encoding each sample in each row from the plurality of rows (see, e.g., pars. 31-39 and FIGS. 2C and 3, which teach that encoding samples in the plane row by row from left to right) , wherein encoding a sample comprises: computing a temporal prediction for the sample (see, e.g., pars. 32 and 39 and FIGS. 2C and 3, which teach computing a prediction for the current sample using the previously processed data; the examiner interprets this prediction as temporal because it is based on the timing of the previously processed data) ; computing an error for the sample comprising a difference between the sample and the computed temporal based prediction (see, e.g., pars. 33 and 39 and FIGS. 2C and 3, which teach computing an error for the sample including a difference between the sample and the prediction) ; determining a context for the sample using previously processed data relative to a corresponding sample to the sample (see, e.g., pars. 33-34 and 40 and FIGS. 2C and 3, which teach forming the multi-dimensional context by quantizing previously processed data) ; selecting a model for the sample by using the determined context (see, e.g., pars. 27, 33-34 and 40 and FIGS. 1, 2D and 3, which teach selecting a model for the sample using the multi-dimensional context) ; and encoding the computed error by using the selected model (see, e.g., pars. 25, 34-35 and 40 and FIGS. 1, 2C-D and 3, which teach splitting each frame into one or more planes) . Cismas as applied does not explicitly teach that the received frames are characterized by a relative invariance of noise data detected between consecutive received frames. Stromberg in the analogous art teaches receiving a video sequence including two consecutive images with a zero or nearly zero difference in coefficient and a constant/invariable amount of noise (see, e.g., pars. 35 and 42 of Stromberg). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cismas to include consecutive frames with invariable noise as taught by Stromberg because doing so would yield predictable results of being able to consider the small difference between the frames when making prediction (see, e.g., pars. 9, 35 and 42 of Stromberg and MPEP 2143(I)(D)). For claims 4 and 13, while Cismas as applied does not explicitly teach, Stromberg in the analogous art teaches that the sensor data is received from a fixed sensor on a computing device (see, e.g., pars. 9, 20 and 35 of Stromberg, which teach receiving sensor data from a stationary/immobile recording unit) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cismas to use a fixed sensor as taught by Stromberg because doing so would yield predictable results of accurately measuring the coefficients between the frames and being able to consider the small difference between the frames (see, e.g., pars. 9, 35 and 42 of Stromberg and MPEP 2143(I)(D)). For claims 6 and 15, Cismas in view of Stromberg teaches that the plane of sensor data is data for a single component of a frame of sensor data (see, e.g., pars. 29-30 and FIGS. 2A-B of Cismas, which teach that each plane corresponds to each component of a frame) , wherein the frame of sensor data includes data for a plurality of components (see, e.g., pars. 29-30 and FIGS. 2A-B of Cismas, which teach that a frame includes data for multiple components) , the method further comprising: separating the accessed frame of sensor data into a plurality of planes including the plane of sensor data (see, e.g., pars. 29-30 and FIGS. 2A-B of Cismas, which teach splitting the frame into a plurality of planes) . For claims 7 and 16, Cismas in view of Stromberg teaches: applying run length encoding (see, e.g., pars. 28 and 37 and FIGS. 1 and 2D of Cismas, which teach applying run length encoding) . For claims 8 and 17, Cismas in view of Stromberg teaches: updating parameters for the selected model after encoding the sample (see, e.g., par. 44 of Cismas, which teaches encoding the model parameter in the bit stream after encoding) . For claims 9 and 18, Cismas in view of Stromberg teaches: decoding the encoded sensor data using the selected model (see, e.g., par. 49 of Cismas, which teaches decoding the encoded values using the model used for encoding) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cismas in view of Stromberg and further in view of Us patent application publication no. 2020/0275104 to Zhao et al. (hereinafter Zhao) . For claims 2 and 11, while Cismas in view of Stromberg does not explicitly, Zhao in the analogous art teaches processing a first plane of sensor data to serve as a reference for encoding a next plane of sensor data (see, e.g., pars. 28-30 and FIG. 2 of Zhao, which teach encoding the current frame based on a reference frame, e.g., the previous frame) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cismas in view of Stromberg to use a previous frame as a reference as taught by Cismas because doing so would yield predictable results of improving coding efficiency by exploiting temporal redundancy between frame (see, e.g., pars. 29-30 of Zhao and MPEP 2143(I)(D)) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3, 12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cismas in view of Stromberg and further in view of Us patent application publication no. 2024/0004478 to Liu . For claims 3, 12 and 20, while Cismas in view of Stromberg does not explicitly teach, Liu in the analogous art teaches that the plurality of frames comprises consecutively detected image frames for a gesture input (see, e.g., pars. 20-21, 40-42 and 112-122 and FIGS. 1, 8 and 9A-B of Liu, which teach receiving a plurality of consecutive frames of touch-control gesture). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cismas in view of Stromberg to process frames of a gesture as taught by Liu because doing so would yield predictable results of improving flexibility in interacting with a touch pad interface using a gesture (see, e.g., par.124 of Liu and MPEP 2143(I)(D)) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cismas in view of Stromberg and further in view of Us patent no. 9838641 to Lim et al. (hereinafter Lim) . For claims 5 and 14, while Cismas in view of Stromberg does not explicitly, Lim in the analogous art teaches that the sensor data comprises low resolution images captured at an increased frame rate (see, e.g., lines 49-63 in col. 30 and FIG. 3 of Lim, which teach capturing low resolution images at a high frame rate) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cismas to use a fixed sensor as taught by Stromberg because doing so would yield predictable results of obtaining a maximum number of images for a highly desirable scene (see, e.g., lines 49-63 in col. 30 and FIG. 3 of Lim and MPEP 2143(I)(D)). Additional Citations The following table lists several references that are relevant to the subject matter claimed and disclosed in this Application. The references are not relied on by the Examiner, but are provided to assist the Applicant in responding to this Office action. Citation Relevance Lindberg et al. (us pat. pub. 2018/0352243) Disclosed are techniques for pre-processing an image for compression, e.g., one that includes a plurality of pixels, where each pixel is composed of sub-pixels that include at least an alpha sub-pixel. First, the alpha sub-pixels are separated into a first data stream. Next, invertible transformations are applied to the remaining sub-pixels to produce transformed sub-pixels. Next, for each row of the pixels: (i) identifying a predictive function that yields a smallest prediction differential total for the row, (ii) providing an identifier of the predictive function to a second data stream, and (iii) converting the transformed sub-pixels of the pixels in the row into prediction differentials based on the predictive function. Additionally, the prediction differentials for each of the pixels are encoded into first and second bytes that are provided to third and fourth data streams, respectively. In turn, the various data streams are compressed into a compressed image. Schroers et al. (us pat. pub. 2022/0215595) Discloses systems and methods for predicting a target set of pixels. In one embodiment, a method may include obtaining target content. The target content may include a target set of pixels to be predicted. The method may also include convolving the target set of pixels to generate an estimated set of pixels. The method may include matching a second set of pixels in the target content to the target set of pixels. The second set of pixels may be within a distance from the target set of pixels. The method may include refining the estimated set of pixels to generate a refined set of pixels using a second set of pixels in the target content. Filippini et al. (us pat. pub. 2010/0246688) Discloses a method or device for coding source video. In one embodiment, the method or device may provide for a segment of video frames from the source video, computing a noise map for the segment of the source video where the noise map is computed from differences among pixels selected from spatially-distributed sampling patterns in the segment, computing control parameter adjustments based on the noise map, and coding the selected segment of source video according to control parameters generated from a default coding policy and the control parameter adjustments, where the default coding policy includes default control parameters of the encoder. Table 1 Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892 and Table 1 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOO RHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-6560. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 am - 6:00 pm et. 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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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. /WOO C RHIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/899,688 Page 2 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/899,688 Page 3 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/899,688 Page 4 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/899,688 Page 5 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/899,688 Page 6 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/899,688 Page 7 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/899,688 Page 8 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/899,688 Page 9 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/899,688 Page 10 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/899,688 Page 11 Art Unit: 2676
Prosecution Insights