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 .
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20130089151 A1 (Do51)
US 20120183043 A1 (Cohen43)
US 20150189283 A1 (para 121)
Numbering of claims
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not). Claim number 3 is used twice. To preserve integrity and avoid amendments (such as amending claims 4-5), the first claim that is numbered 3 will be renumbered as claim 9 for now. When the application is ready for allowance, the examiner, if necessary, will renumber the claims consecutively in the order in which they appear or in such order as may have been requested by applicant
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 5 , 8 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 9 (renumbered) recites “the one or more metadata symbols”, lack of antecedent basis, Examination purpose will assume “wherein the first set of decoded data corresponds to one or more metadata symbols, wherein if , wherein if the one or more metadata symbols … ” as indicated in claim 4. Claims 5 & 8 are similarly indefinite and similar assumption is made.
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.
Claims 2, 3 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Do51.
Regarding Claim 3. Do51 teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, [(para 50, 80)] cause a decoder to perform the following operations: obtain a set of encoded data, said encoded data containing information which, when decoded, would enable reconstruction of the set of sparse data:[(Fig.11, para 83 encoded data 1110 contains information for sparse data reconstruction )] decode a first portion of said set of encoded data to obtain a first set of decoded data [(CS_Flag; Also “The function block 1115 entropy decodes a bitstream and obtains the quantized transform coefficients of the residue, the Intra/Inter prediction modes, etc” in para 83)] : and based on the first set of decoded data, determine how to reconstruct a first portion of the set of sparse data [(“The function block 1140 performs a block reconstruction in the Total-Variation (TV) domain and/or the learned sparsifying transform domain by solving the optimization problem described in Equation (16)”, para 83-84)]
Regarding claim 2. A method of decoding a set of sparse data, the method comprising: obtaining a set of encoded data, said encoded data containing information which, when decoded, would enable reconstruction of the set of sparse data: decoding a first portion of said set of encoded data to obtain a first set of decoded data: and based on the first set of decoded data, determining how to reconstruct a first portion of the set of sparse data. [(see analysis of claim 3)]
Regarding claim 6. A decoder comprising: a processor: computer readable storage medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the decoder to perform the following operations: obtain a set of encoded data, said encoded data containing information which, when decoded, would enable reconstruction of the set of sparse data: decode a first portion of said set of encoded data to obtain a first set of decoded data: and based on the first set of decoded data, determine how to reconstruct a first portion of the set of sparse data. [(see analysis of claim 3)]
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.
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 4-5, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do51 in view of Cohen43.
Regarding Claims 4, 7. Do51 teaches the computer readable storage medium of claim 3, wherein the first set of decoded data corresponds to one or more metadata symbols indicating whether to reconstruct a first portion of the set of data based on a second set of decoded data or based on simulating the first portion of the set of sparse data.[(Fig.11, learned sparsifying in step 1140 indicate simulating; on the other hand prediction compensated reconstructed block in step 1160 teaches reconstruction a first portion based on second portion; this is selected based on CS_Flag values 1 or 0 i.e. symbol)]
While Do51 teaches reconstruct a first portion of the set of data based on a second set of decoded data, Do51 is silent about whether this for reconstruction of sparse data.
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Cohen43 teaches reconstruct a first portion of the set of sparse data based on a second set of decoded data [(para 50-51 and Fig.6, prediction dependent sparse transform is perform using inverse DCT)]
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. [(Cohen43 para 50-51 and Fig.6, prediction dependent sparse transform is perform using inverse DCT; inverse DCT/IDCT is also used in Do51 Fig.11 for prediction compensated reconstruction of data)]
Claim 5. The computer readable storage medium of claim 3, wherein if the one or more metadata symbols indicates that reconstruction of the first portion of the set of sparse data should be based on a second set of decoded data, the method further comprises: decoding a second portion of said set of encoded data to obtain the second set of decoded data: and reconstructing the first portion of the set of sparse data by extracting from the second set of decoded data a first type of data symbols. [(Cohen43 para 50-51 and Fig.6, prediction dependent sparse transform is perform using inverse DCT; inverse DCT/IDCT is also used in Do51 Fig.11 for prediction compensated reconstruction of data)]
Claim 8, 9 (renumbered ). the one or more metadata symbols indicates that reconstruction of the first portion of the set of sparse data should be based on simulating the first portion of the set of sparse data, the method further comprises: simulating a first portion of the set of sparse data by generating a second type of data symbols. .[(Do51 Fig.11, learned sparsifying in step 1140 indicate simulating)]
.
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 2-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12192499 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 2-9 are anticipated by patented claims 1-6
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