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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of priority based on continuation to U.S. Application No. 17/539,580, filed on December 1, 2021, now U.S. Patent No. 12,160,597, and priority and benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) to the United Kingdom Patent Application No. GB20184943.07, filed on December 01, 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (“IDS”) filed on 11/30/2024, 06/09/2025, 10/31/2025, 03/30/2026, 06/11/2026, 07/01/2026, and 09/20/2026 were reviewed and the listed references were noted.
Drawings
The 12 page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 obviousness-type 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); 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 conflicting 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). In order to expedite the processing/approval of the terminal disclaimer, Applicants may choose to file an electronic terminal disclaimer (eTerminal Disclaimer) by referring to the following website:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of the parent U.S. Patent No. 12,160,597. The claims of the instant application are broader in every aspect than the ones in the parent U.S. Patent No. 12,160,597, and are therefore, obvious variants thereof. Although the conflicting claims are not, identical they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1-20 are generic to all that are recited in claims of the sister U.S. Patent No. 12,160,597.
As an example, the following is a chart comparing Claim 1 of the instant application to Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,160,597:
Instant Application
U.S. Patent Application No. 12,160,597
Claim 1. A method of data decompression comprising:
receiving compressed image data substantially in raster scan order; and
for each group of pixels in a row of the compressed image data, identifying a block- based decoding scheme for the group of pixels and decoding the compressed data corresponding to the group of pixels at decoding hardware using the identified scheme
Claim 1 A method of data decompression comprising:
receiving compressed image data substantially in raster scan order;
determining a number of bits of compressed data that corresponds to one row of pixels of said image;
using the number of bits to pass pixel data corresponding to the row of pixels to decoding hardware: and
for each group of pixels in the row, identifying a block-based decoding scheme for the group of pixels and decoding the compressed data corresponding to the group of pixels at the decoding hardware using the identified scheme.
In addition, there is direct correspondence between the dependent claims of the instant application and the dependent claims of the parent U.S. Patent No. 12,160,597. Therefore, all of the claims of the instant application are broader in scope that the claims of the parent U.S. patent.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2020/0329238).
Consider Claim 1, Choi discloses “A method of data decompression” (Choi, Title) “comprising: receiving compressed image pixel data substantially in raster scan order” (Choi, Fig. 15, Paragraph [0121], where coding in rows. i.e., raster scan order is disclosed; and Paragraph [0186], where the determination is made that the reference coding is in accordance with a raster scan order); “for each group of pixels in a row of the compressed image data” (Choi, Paragraph [0121] discloses encoding image data of pixels in a row and Paragraph [0193] discloses “The extractor 1610 may receive and parse a bitstream to extract image data encoded in units of coding units of a tree structure”; wherein the tree structure is interpreted to be pixels in a row in accordance with Paragraph [0121]), “identifying a block- based decoding scheme for the group of pixels and decoding the compressed data corresponding to the group of pixels at decoding hardware using the identified scheme” (Choi, Paragraphs [0194]-[0195] disclose “The decoder 1620 decodes the image data encoded in units of the coding units, based on the coding mode information, for the coding units of the tree structure, which is extracted by the extractor 1610. [0195] The decoder 1620 may determine a split type, a prediction mode, and the like of a coding unit, based on information about the coding units of the tree structure for each largest coding unit. For example, the decoder 1620 may determine a split type and a prediction mode of a coding unit according to split type information and prediction mode information.” The different types of block-decoding require identifying the decoding scheme).
Accordingly, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the different teachings/embodiments of Choi to derive the invention of Claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these steps in order to provide a robust block-based raster scan decompression of fixed block size compressed data.
Accordingly, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee with the teachings of Macinnis to determine the number of bits of compressed data in one row of pixels. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these steps in order to provide a robust block-based raster scan decompression of fixed block size compressed data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee and Macinnis to obtain the invention in Claim 1.
Consider Claim 3, Choi discloses “The method according to claim 1, each group of pixels comprising a pair of adjacent pixels and wherein the encoded data for each pixel or pair of adjacent pixels comprises a sequence of a multiple of P bits, where P is an integer” (Choi, Paragraph [0053], where coding units are defined as having different sizes of bits, i.e., 32X32, 64X64, …).
Consider Claim 6, the combination of Lee and Macinnis discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises decoding a plurality of groups of pixels substantially in parallel” (Choi, Paragraph [0066]).
Claim 7 recites data decompression hardware with elements corresponding to the steps of the method recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of the hardware Claim 7 are mapped to the proposed Choi reference in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method Claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the embodiments of Choi presented in Claim 1, apply to Claim 7. Finally, Choi discloses a hardware unit for its decompression method (see for example, Choi, Paragraph [0301]).
Claim 16 recites data decompression hardware with elements corresponding to the steps of the method recited in Claim 3. Therefore, the recited elements of the hardware Claim 16 are mapped to the proposed Choi reference in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method Claim 3. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the embodiments of the Choi reference presented in Claim 1, apply to Claim 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-5, 8-15, and 17-20 are not rejected over prior art references and will be allowable if: (i) rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and (ii) the rejection of the claims under non-statutory double patenting is overcome. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: for example, consider Claim 2, none of the cited prior art references, alone or in combination, provides a motivation to teach “wherein for an even row in a part-block, the compressed data comprises all the pixel data required to output two decompressed output pixels and for a subset of the encoding patterns additionally comprises advance data for use in decompressing a pair of pixels in a subsequent row of the same part-block.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Magpayo et al. (US 2020/0112732), Gisquet et al. (US 2017/0230684), and Wegener et al. (US 2014/0219361).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Siamak HARANDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1832. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 - 6:00 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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571)272-3382. 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.
/SIAMAK HARANDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights