DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the Application filed on December 23, 2024, which claims priority to Chinese Patent Application No. 202311845713.3, filed on December 28, 2023. An action on the merits follows. Claims 1-15 are pending on the application.
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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1-12 contain portions that are missing or blurry, and therefore are not electronically reproducible. See 37 CFR 1.84(I). Replacement drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84 and 1.121(d) containing figures that are of sufficient quality to be electronically reproduced are required.
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
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 (e.g., module, model, unit, etc.) 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) are: “module, configured to input”, “model, to obtain”, “module, configured to perform… to obtain”, “module is further configured to… compare… to obtain… and determine”, “module configured to… compile… and process”, “module is further configured to… call… and process… to obtain”, “module is further configured to… call… and process… to obtain”, “module is further configured to… obtain… and splice… to obtain… and replace” in claims 8-13, respectively.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Fig. 7-9 and 11-12; Par. [0027, 105, 74, 108-109] describe a programmed computing device or computer, including for example software, hardware, or a combination of hardware and software, capable of performing the described functionality.
If applicant does not intend to have 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 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 sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the processed image” in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the lack of antecedent basis makes the scope of the claim indeterminate. Additionally, the examiner cannot clearly ascertain if the claimed “the processed image” limitation recited in line 5 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to a “processed image” that could be generated as a result of the claimed “processing results of the… blocks of the to-be-processed image” previously recited in lines 2-4 of the claim, or if the claimed “the processed image” limitation recited in line 5 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to another “processed image” different from a “processed image” that could be generated as a result of the claimed “processing results of the… blocks of the to-be-processed image” previously recited in lines 2-4 of the claim, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the processed image and the to-be-processed image are divided in a same division method” in line 5 of the claim. However, the claimed “same division method” limitation is not defined by the claim(s) and the examiner cannot clearly ascertain which steps, if any, are encompassed by the claimed “division method” recited in line 5 of the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 2-7 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “processed image” in line 5 of the claim. However, the claimed “processed image” limitation recited in line 5 of the claim is not defined by the claim(s). Additionally, the examiner cannot clearly ascertain if the claimed “processed image” limitation recited in line 5 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to a “processed image” that could be generated as a result of the claimed “processing results of the… blocks of the to-be-processed image” previously recited in lines 2-4 of the claim, or if the claimed “processed image” limitation recited in line 5 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to another “processed image” different from a “processed image” that could be generated as a result of the claimed “processing results of the… blocks of the to-be-processed image” previously recited in lines 2-4 of the claim, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 8 further recites the limitation “processed image and the to-be-processed image are divided in a same division method” in lines 5-6 of the claim. However, the claimed “same division method” limitation is not defined by the claim(s) and the examiner cannot clearly ascertain which steps, if any, are encompassed by the claimed “same division method” recited in line 5 of the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 8 further recites the limitation “second blocks of the processed image, to obtain an image processing result of the to-be-processed image, wherein second blocks are blocks of the to-be-processed image” in lines 8-11 of the claim. However, the examiner cannot clearly ascertain if the claimed “second blocks” recited in line 10 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “second blocks” previously recited in line of the 8 claim, or if the claimed “second blocks” recited in line 10 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to other “second blocks” different from the claimed “second blocks” previously recited in line of the 8 claim, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 9-14 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 8.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “all frames are divided into a plurality of blocks according to a predefined division method” in lines 4-5 of the claim. However, the claimed “all frames” limitation recited in line 5 of the claim is not defined by the claim(s). Additionally, the examiner cannot clearly ascertain if the claimed “all frames” limitation recited in line 5 of the claim encompass embodiments that include the claimed “current frame” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, or if the claimed “all frames” limitation recited in line 5 of the claim encompass embodiments to “frames” that do not include the claimed “current frame” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, for example. Furthermore, the claimed “predefined division method” limitation is not defined by the claim(s) and the examiner cannot clearly ascertain which steps, if any, are encompassed by the claimed “predefined division method” recited in line 5 of the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-4979. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights