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
Election
In response to restriction requirement, applicant elected claims 2-7 without traverse.
Prior Arts
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EBRAHIMI, T., and HORNE, C., "MPEG-4 Natural Video Coding - An Overview", Signal Processing: Image Communication, 15:365-385 (2000). (Ebrahimi)
US 7408986 B2 (Winder)
US 20100079667 A1 (hereinafter Turetken)
US 20120075535 A1 (hereinafter Van)
US 20050249426 A1 (hereinafter Badawy)
US 20100135398 A1 (hereinafter Wittmann)
US 20110254950 A1 (video {para 3})
US 20120294362 A1 (Fig.23; para 123, 121; taking into global motion/affine)
EE, M.-C., et al., "A Layered Video Object Coding System Using Sprite and Affine Motion Model", IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 7(1):130-145 (1997).
Claim Interpretation-35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “motion compensation block” and “combiner” in claims 2, 6. Specification describing, they are implemented in a signal processor including application running on generic computer (see published specification para 100-103, 138-140, Fig.1, 7) .
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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)(1) as being anticipated by US20120170649 A1 (hereinafter Chen649).
Regarding Claim 7:
Claim interpretation
Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” Id. However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. Id.
Claim 7 is directed to a memory/storage device storing a bitstream comprising a motion compensation block, a combiner and several wherein clauses that appear to describe how the bitstream is generated. These elements/steps are not performed by an intended computer, and the bitstream is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the generation of the bitstream and intended computer system.
If the specification supports, the claim can be amended to recites a one or more memory or storage devices storing computer executable program, when the program is executed by a processor…….. performing the steps .
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.
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 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 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebrahimi in view of Winder.
Regarding Claim 2: Ebrahimi teaches a motion compensation system [(Fig.4)] within a signal processor configured as a decoder, the motion compensation system comprising: a motion compensation block to receive a reference image [(VOP memory providing reference, it is the already decoded VOP from the output in Fig.4; also see section 4, predicted based on previously decoded VOP)] for a video signal and information on motion compensation and to generate a motion compensated image: [(motion decoding block feeding motion information to motion compensation block, Fig.4)] and
a combiner to combine the motion compensated image with residual data to reconstruct a rendition of a target image for the video signal [(Ebrahimi use MPEG; this is typical for MPEG or other video compression {see applicant specification para 20; also see Fig.4 reconstructed VOP})] ,
wherein the information on motion compensation is used to determine [(page 373, left column first para)] ,
wherein each motion vector is used to determine a set of fractional coordinates, the set of fractional coordinates indicating a location within the reference image that is at a resolution that is higher than the reference image [(page 373, left column first para; half-sample precision; half-sample precision means four-time higher resolution than regular pixel/sample resolution; i.e. 2x2 points per pixel/sample)] ,,
wherein the set of fractional coordinates are used to determine a grouping of multiple display elements in the reference image [((page 373, left column first para; one vector for entire macroblock)] , and
wherein the grouping of multiple display elements in the reference image are weighted to determine values for display elements in the motion compensated image [(section 3.2; the pixel elements are provided with weight from 0-255)] .
Ebrahimi does not explicitly show plurality motion vector for plurality of display elements;
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Van teaches plurality of motion vectors for plurality of display elements [(Fig.16, para delts motion vectors are estimated for each 5x5 pixels {column 27 last para})]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior to increase motion detection accuracy.
Ebrahimi in view of Winder additionally teaches with respect claim 3. The motion compensation system of claim 2, wherein a set of weights for the grouping of multiple display elements are determined according to a resampling kernel. [(Ebrahimi section 3.1 & 3.2 alpha plane teaches Kernel; also see Winder column 30 lines 46-64 and column 15 lines 30-65 and )]
Ebrahimi additionally teaches with respect to claim 4. The motion compensation system of claim 2, wherein the set of weights are retrieved from a look-up table. [(Ebrahimi section 3.1 indicates use of table when multiple items are being used in coding)]
Ebrahimi in view of Winder additionally teaches with respect to claim 5. The motion compensation system of claim 2, wherein the set of fractional coordinates are determined based on an affine transformation. [(Winder Column 30 lines 1-10; pixel location indicates coordinates)]
Ebrahimi in view of Winder additionally teaches with respect to claim 6. A motion compensation system within a signal processor configured as a encoder, the motion compensation system comprising
a motion compensation block to receive a reference image for a video signal and information on motion compensation and to generate a motion compensated image
and a combiner to combine the motion compensated image with residual data to reconstruct a rendition of a target image for the video signal, wherein the information on motion compensation is used to determine a plurality of motion vectors for a plurality of display elements associated with the motion compensated image, wherein each motion vector is used to determine a set of fractional coordinates, the set of fractional coordinates indicating a location within the reference image that is at a resolution that is higher than the reference image, wherein the set of fractional coordinates are used to determine a grouping of multiple display elements in the reference image, and wherein the grouping of multiple display elements in the reference image are weighted to determine values for display elements in the motion compensated image. [(se analysis of claim 2 and note coding/encoding in Ebrahimi Abstract)]
Regarding Claim 7: If claim 7 is amended as discussed above, they still will be obvious over Ebrahimi in view of Winder. Analysis will be similar to claim 1.
Double Patenting
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-4, 6-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12155834 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 2-4 are anticipated by patented claims 1-3. Instant claims 6-7 are obvious variant of instant claim 2, therefore are obvious over patented claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12155834 in view of Winder. The additional limitation of this claim is taught by Winder Col. 30 lines 1-10. Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426