DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 at each of lines 12 and 14 respectively: “the compressed version of the image” should be -- the compressed image -- in order to be consistent with claim 10’s language.
Claim 20 at line 1: “of claim 19, further comprising” should be -- of claim 19, wherein the non-transitory computer readable storage medium further storing --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. More specifically, the claim limitation “selectively obtaining a second classification of the compressed version of the image based at least in part on the probability of the compressed version of the image meeting the first classification” as recited in claim 1 at lines 11-13 [and as also similarly recited in each of claims 10 and 19 respectively] are drafted as unlimited functional claim limitations that extend to all means or methods of resolving a problem that are not adequately supported by the written description (See MPEP 2173.05(g)). It is suggested to be -- selectively obtaining a second classification of the compressed version of the image based on applying the first classifier to one or more sets of second block coefficients associated with one or more second image blocks of the plurality of image blocks and further based at least in part on the probability of the compressed version of the image meeting the first classification -- as supported by each of paragraphs [0007] and [0008] of the Applicant’s originally filed specification.
Claims 2-9 are dependent upon claim 1 respectively.
Claims 11-18 are dependent upon claim 10 respectively.
Claim 20 is dependent upon claim 19 respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Rejection
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 8, 10, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,015. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention of ‘015 U.S. Patent obviously encompasses the present claimed invention and differ only in the terminology [‘015 U.S. Patent is narrower than the present application].
Accordingly, in respect to above discussions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of claims 1, 4, 8, 10, and 12 of ‘015 U.S. Patent as general teachings for a method, device, and program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium for classifying a compressed version of the image as claimed by the present application. The claimed invention of ‘015 U.S. Patent obviously encompasses the present claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhu et al ‘947 discloses a transcoding method by selecting the corresponding classifier according to the size of the current coding unit, and combining the extracted feature vector to obtain the classified label value and classification probability value, the classification probability value with a corresponding adaptive threshold value, judging whether to accept the classification label value, if acceptable, then directly using a classification label result to code, otherwise the original rate distortion cost function traversing various coding parameter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD KRASNIC whose telephone number is (571)270-1357. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thur. and every other Friday from 8am - 4pm.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571)272-8243. 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.
/Bernard Krasnic/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights