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 .
Claims 1-10 are pending in the application.
Priority
The present application claims foreign priority benefits from JP2024-041799 filed on 03/18/2024. The certified copy of the priority document was electronically retrieved on 02/04/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/08/2025 is considered and attached.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 last line at the end “as an encoding unit” should be removed.
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. The following table lists the occurrences that use means and corresponding structure and associated algorithm.
Claim no.
112(f) elements
Corresponding structure (PGPub)
Associated algorithm (PGPub)
1
5
6
an image acquisition unit … acquires
the image acquisition unit acquires
the image acquisition unit acquires
FIG. 1/8/11; para. [0020] “The image encoding device 100 is configured by a computer equipped with a CPU, a ROM, and a RAM (not shown)”
Para. [0022]
1
3
4
5
6
8
9
a block division determination unit … determines
the block division determination unit is configured to specify … divide
the block division determination unit divides
the block division determination unit determines
the block division determination unit determines
the block division determination unit performs
the block division determination unit corrects
FIG. 1/8/11; para. [0020]
FIG. 2-7; para. [0027]-[0044]; FIG. 8-9; para. [0052]-[0058]; para. [0062]
1
7
an encoding unit that executes
the encoding unit corrects
FIG. 1/8/11; para. [0020]
FIG. 1/8/11; para. [0023]; para. [0064]-[0067]
2
a label image generation unit that generates
FIG. 1/8/11; para. [0020]
FIG. 1/8/11; para. [0024]
5
a vehicle information acquisition unit …acquires
FIG. 1/8/11; para. [0020]
Para. [0050]
6
a tracking information acquisition unit … acquires
FIG. 1/8/11; para. [0020]
Para. [0051]
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10 is reproduced in following (annotation added).
10. The image encoding device according to claim 1, further comprising:
at least one of (i) a circuit and (ii) a processor having a memory storing computer program code,
wherein the at least one of the circuit and the processor having the memory is configured to cause the image encoding device to provide at least one of: the image acquisition unit; the block division determination unit; and the encoding unit.
As analyzed above, in independent claim 1, “an image acquisition unit”, “a block division determination unit” and “an encoding unit” are interpreted as invoking 35 USC 112(f).
For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
To claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d 1328 at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. In this instance, the structure corresponding to a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed in the specification. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239; Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008); WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America Co., 989 F.3d 1002, 1007-8, 2021 USPQ2d 284 (Fed. Cir. 2021).[AltContent: rect]
The corresponding structure is not simply a general purpose computer by itself but the special purpose computer as programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Thus, the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to the special purpose computer. See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, 86 USPQ2d at 1241. ("Aristocrat was not required to produce a listing of source code or a highly detailed description of the algorithm to be used to achieve the claimed functions in order to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. It was required, however, to at least disclose the algorithm that transforms the general purpose microprocessor to a ‘special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’" (quoting WMS Gaming, 184 F.3d at 1349, 51 USPQ2d at 1391.)) See MPEP 2181 II B.
Therefore, in independent claim 1, the corresponding structure of “an image acquisition unit”, “a block division determination unit” and “an encoding unit” is not simply a general purpose computer by itself but the special purpose computer as programmed to perform the corresponding disclosed algorithm (see above table in 112f section). Claim 10, dependent upon claim 1, however, merely discloses a general purpose computer implementing “the image acquisition unit”, “the block division determination unit” and “the encoding unit”, and therefore does not specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed, rather it broadens the limitation of these units.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowed.
The following is Examiner’s reasons for identification of allowable subject matter.
In independent claim 1, “an image acquisition unit”, “a block division determination unit” and “an encoding unit” are interpreted as invoking 35 USC 112 (f) claim interpretation. Since these units are computer-implemented elements, the corresponding algorithms in the specification are being read into the elements interpreted under 112(f) as identified above. Specifically, at least para. [0027]-[0044], [0052]-[0058] and [0062]-[0067] of the instant specification contains allowable subject matter when taken in combination with the entirety of the claim.
The following prior art is considered closest to the current application.
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, as per claim 1, Sogabe (US 11257193 B2) teaches an image encoding device (Abstract) comprising:
an image acquisition unit (FIG. 1-2; FIG. 3 #300) that acquires a label image in which a label representing a type of a feature is assigned to a region of the label image corresponding to the feature in a label target image (FIG. 8 S2-S3; FIG. 7 Importance Level “High”, “Medium” and “Low”);
a block division determination unit (FIG. 3 #302) that determines a division pattern of an encoding target block in an encoding target image based on the region in the label image and the label assigned to the region (FIG. 7; FIG. 9; col. 8 ln 11-61); and
an encoding unit (FIG. 3 #306) that executes an encoding process for the encoding target block specified by the division pattern as an encoding unit (col. 7 ln 56 -col. 9 ln 10).
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, as per claim 1, Miyauchi (US 20210334603 A1) discloses an image encoding device (FIG. 1) comprising:
an image acquisition unit that acquires a label image in which a label representing a type of a feature is assigned to a region of the label image corresponding to the feature in a label target image (FIG. 1; FIG. 3A; para. [0039] “FIG. 3A shows a hierarchy map for one CTU. An area of interest in an interest CTU is hereinafter referred to as the interest area. The feature extraction section 200 extracts a dividing pattern feature of each area so as to determine a dividing pattern of CUs in the CTU. More specifically, the feature extraction section 200 extracts a feature indicating that the interest area of the interest CTU belongs to a block of 64×64 pixels, a block of 32×32 pixels, a block of 16×16 pixels, or a block of 8×8 pixels. A hierarchy map value is associated with one of the above-mentioned blocks”);
a block division determination unit (FIG. 1 #101) that determines a division pattern of an encoding target block in an encoding target image based on the region in the label image and the label assigned to the region (FIG. 2; FIG. 3B-3F; para. [0039] “The hierarchy map value is a value indicating a layer where block division is to be performed and indicating a size of a block to be divided (block size). A value “0” indicates that the interest area belongs to a block of 64×64 pixels. A value “I” indicates that the interest area belongs to a block of 32×32 pixels. A value “2” indicates that the interest area belongs to a block of 16×16 pixels. A value “3” indicates that the interest area belongs to blocks of 8×8 pixels”); and
an encoding unit (FIG. 1) that executes an encoding process for the encoding target block specified by the division pattern as an encoding unit (para. [0032]-[0034]).
Prior art, either applied alone, or in combination with, fails to teach or suggest all the limitations as recited in claim 1 in view of 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation.
Conclusion
Prior art searched but not cited is recorded in PTO-892.
Additional prior art Kalva et al. (US 20240283930 A1) discloses a video encoder which includes an image detection and segmentation processor for receiving the video frame and generating object recognition data and at least one image segmentation mask, a mask to coding block mapping processor maps the segmentation mask to the CTUs of the video frame and partitions at least one CTU into a plurality of coding units (CUs) based on a detected object boundary in the CTU, and a video encoding processor receives the video frame, the object recognition data and the partitioned CUs and encodes the CUs with at least one of a resolution or quantization parameter determined at least in part on whether the CU includes an object. See Abstract; FIG. 5-8, para. [0036]-[0045].
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUEMEI G CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3480. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, John M Villecco can be reached on (571) 272-7319. 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.
/XUEMEI G CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights