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 .
Specification
The title is objected to because it contains the typo, “WIHT”. It is believed this should be “WITH”.
Correction is required.
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 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: “adaptive quantization module” in claim 11.
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(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 limitation “adaptive quantization module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While there appears to be adequate algorithmic support for the limitations associated with the module, there fails to be a specifically linked structural element that demonstrates the ability to carry out the claimed/disclosed functionality. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (U.S. Patent No. 6,546,049 B1) referred to as LEE hereinafter.
Regarding claim 1, LEE shows a video encoder (Col. 5, lines 35-40 disclose the ability for the disclosed invention to be carried out on apparatuses etc.) for encoding video data for machines using adaptive quantization, the encoder including a quantization processor having a default quantization matrix (Col. 2, lines 11-15 disclose wherein the adaptation takes place on a matrix of a previously encoded frame of the same picture type.) and performing the steps comprising:
obtaining a machine model for the machine-based system receiving the video data (Col. 2, lines 5-8 describe the visual discrimination model, which is machine based and does not require on-line computation.);
generate a frequency importance map from the machine model (Col. 2, lines 15-25 discloses a DCT map, which inherently takes place in the frequency domain and is statistics-based, which leans on importance to make decisions.);
determine an adjustment matrix based on the frequency importance map (Col. 2, lines 30-40, generating shape parameters.);
adjust the default quantization matrix using the adjustment matrix (Col. 2, lines 30-40 generating updated Q matrix.); and
quantize the video data using the adjusted quantization matrix (Col. 2, lines 37-39)
Regarding claim 6, LEE shows an adaptive quantization module (Col. 5, lines 35-40 disclose the ability for the disclosed invention to be carried out on apparatuses etc.) for encoding or decoding video data, the adaptive quantization module having a processor programmed to perform an adaptive quantization method, comprising:
obtaining a machine model for the machine-based system receiving the video data (Col. 2, lines 5-8 describe the visual discrimination model, which is machine based and does not require on-line computation.);
generate a frequency importance map from the machine model (Col. 2, lines 15-25 discloses a DCT map, which inherently takes place in the frequency domain and is statistics-based, which leans on importance to make decisions.);
determine an adjustment matrix based on the frequency importance map (Col. 2, lines 30-40, generating shape parameters.);
adjust the default quantization matrix using the adjustment matrix (Col. 2, lines 30-40 generating updated Q matrix.); and
quantize the video data using the adjusted quantization matrix (Col. 2, lines 37-39).
Regarding claim 11, LEE shows a decoder for decoding a video bitstream for machine consumption (Col. 1, lines 19-20 make it clear this is for both compression and decompression.), the decoder having an adaptive quantization module programmed to perform inverse quantization of a bitstream encoded with an adaptive quantization method, the inverse quantization comprising:
obtaining a machine model for the machine-based system receiving the video data (Col. 2, lines 5-8 describe the visual discrimination model, which is machine based and does not require on-line computation.);
generate a frequency importance map from the machine model (Col. 2, lines 15-25 discloses a DCT map, which inherently takes place in the frequency domain and is statistics-based, which leans on importance to make decisions.);
determine an adjustment matrix based on the frequency importance map (Col. 2, lines 30-40, generating shape parameters.);
adjust the default quantization matrix using the adjustment matrix (Col. 2, lines 30-40 generating updated Q matrix.); and
Inverse quantize the video data using the adjusted quantization matrix (Col. 2, lines 37-39)
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.
Claim(s) 5, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE in view of Watson, Andrew B. “DCTune: A TECHNIQUE FOR VISUAL OPTIMIZATION OF DCT QUANTIZATION MATRICES FOR INDIVIDUAL IMAGES.” (1993), referred to as WATSON hereinafter.
Regarding claims 5, 10 and 15, LEE shows the limitations of claims 1, 6 and 11, respectively, as applied above, however failing to but WATSON further shows wherein adjusting the default quantization matrix comprises calculating a Hadamard product of the default matrix and the adjustment matrix (Pages 3-4, Optimization Method describes component-by-component multiplication of both the base matrix and the optimization matrix.).
Both LEE and WATSON are analogous art to that of the claimed invention as they all seek to optimize a ‘default’ quantization matrix.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of LEE in the spirit of WATSON because, “custom matrices for a number of images show clear improvement over image-independent matrices.” (WATSON, Abstract)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 7-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN W. RIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7.00 am - 4.30 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, Jamie J Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. 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.
JUSTIN W. RIDER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/Justin W Rider/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486