CTNF 19/172,148 CTNF 79985 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA CLAIM INTERPRETATION 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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: “an image capture component”, “a compression component”, “a network device” in claim 20. Image capture component is described as camera sensor 130, ISP 140 is a compression and a network interface 724. 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. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Double Patenting 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 9, 11, 12, 5, 13, 13, 14 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,632 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 19, 11, 12, 5, 13, 13, 14 and 10 of Patent No. 12,273,632 contains every element of claims 1-20 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claim(s) of the instant application. Claims 1-20 of the instant application therefore is/are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such is/are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim . Regarding claims 1-3, Instant Application Is met by U.S. Patent 12,273,632 claim 9 1. A device comprising: 9. A device comprising: Circuitry to compress an image from a first bit-depth to a second bit-depth that is less than the first bit-depth an image sensor to: capture an image having a first bit-depth; and compress the captured image from the first bit-depth to a second bit-depth that is less than the first bit-depth, the compressing comprising: applying a first compression amount to a first region of the image having a first pixel value; and 3. The device of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first compression amount or the second compression amount is applied based on a power curve. applying, according to a power curve, a first compression amount to a first region of the captured image having a first pixel value; and a second compression amount to a second region of the image having a second pixel value, the second pixel value being a higher value than the first pixel value and applying, according to the power curve, a second compression amount to a second region of the captured image having a higher second pixel value, 2. The device of claim 1, wherein the first compression amount is lower than the second compression amount. wherein the first compression amount is lower than the second compression amount; and a network device to send the compressed image to a remote image signal processor (ISP) configured to process the compressed image, wherein the ISP is associated with a third bit-depth that is lower than the first bit-depth and higher than the second bit-depth. and an image signal processing (ISP) pipeline to process the image, wherein the ISP is associated with a third bit-depth that is lower than the first bit-depth and higher than the second bit-depth. Claims 11-19 are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 1-9 and are rejected for similar reasons as apparatus claims 1-9. Claim 20 is similar to apparatus claim 1 and is also rejected for similar reasons . 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPGUB 20080107349 teaches This invention of efficient image compression applies a new method and circuit of the VLC coding to achieve data reduction with much less computation compared to JPEG. FIG. 2A illustrates the flowchart of basic concept of the compression comprising two procedures: firstly taking the differential value 22 of adjacent pixels 21, secondly applies a variable length coding method 24 to represent the differential value, Dn 23. The difference is then sent to a VLC coding to further reducing the data rate. Decompression procedure reverses the image compression procedure shown in FIG. 2B. The compressed pixels 25 will firstly go through variable length decoding 26 to reconstruct the differential value of adjacent pixels, and the differential value will be added 27 to the previous pixel value to recover the value of present pixel 28. The recovered pixels will be temporarily saved in a register for reference in the next pixel (Paragraph 40) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH K AGGARWAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30-6. 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, Sinh Tran can be reached at 5712727564. 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. /YOGESH K AGGARWAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/172,148 Page 2 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/172,148 Page 3 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/172,148 Page 4 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/172,148 Page 5 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/172,148 Page 6 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/172,148 Page 7 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/172,148 Page 8 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/172,148 Page 9 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/172,148 Page 10 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/172,148 Page 11 Art Unit: 2637
Prosecution Insights