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 .
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 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 2-21 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12323641 in view of Lee et al. (US 20070053604) (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 2,
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12323641 Claim 1
A method comprising:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
accessing image data that comprises a plurality of macropixels;
accessing image data that comprises a plurality of macropixels, wherein the image data is generated using a device comprising a lenslet array;
decomposing the image data into a plurality of components, each respective component comprising a first sub-component and a second sub-component, the decomposing comprising:
decomposing, using Kronecker product singular value decomposition (KP-SVD), the image data into a plurality of components, each respective component comprising a first sub-component and a second sub-component, the decomposing comprising:
determining a first matrix corresponding to the first sub-component, wherein a size of the first matrix is determined based on image data; and
determining a first matrix corresponding to the first sub-component, wherein a size of the first matrix is determined based on the number of the plurality of macropixels included in the image data; and
determining a second matrix corresponding to the second sub-component, wherein a size of the second matrix is determined based on the image data;
determining a second matrix corresponding to the second sub-component, wherein a size of the second matrix is determined based on the dimensions of each of the plurality of macropixels;
encoding each first sub-component using a first encoding technique;
encoding each first sub-component using an image codec;
encoding each second sub-component using a second encoding technique that is different from the first encoding technique; and
encoding each second sub-component using fixed-length encoding;
transmitting each encoded component of the plurality of components to cause display of reconstructed image data based on decoding each encoded component of the plurality of components.
transmitting each encoded component of the plurality of components to cause display of reconstructed image data based on decoding each encoded component of the plurality of components.
Although claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12323641 does not specify a using different coding techniques to store different components from different matrices, Lee paragraph 14 teaches using different coding techniques to store different components from different matrices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention disclosed by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12323641 with the using different coding techniques to store different components from different matrices of Lee in order to more generally define the process by which the invention of U.S. Patent No. 12323641 approaches treatment of different matrix components for encoding.
Claim(s) 3-11 is/are rejected for their dependence on claim(s) 2.
Regarding claim 12,
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12323641 Claim 11
A system comprising:
A computer-implemented system, comprising:
input/output circuitry configured to:
input/output (I/O) circuitry;
access image data that comprises a plurality of macropixels;
access image data that comprises a plurality of macropixels, wherein the image data is generated using a device comprising a lenslet array;
control circuitry configured to:
control circuitry configured to:
decompose the image data into a plurality of components, each respective component comprising a first sub-component and a second sub-component, the decomposing comprising:
decompose the image data into a plurality of components, each respective component comprising a first sub-component and a second sub-component, the decomposing comprising:
determining a first matrix corresponding to the first sub-component, wherein a size of the first matrix is determined based on image data; and
determining a first matrix corresponding to the first sub-component, wherein a size of the first matrix is determined based on the number of the plurality of macropixels included in the image data; and
determining a second matrix corresponding to the second sub-component, wherein a size of the second matrix is determined based on the image data;
determining a second matrix corresponding to the second sub-component, wherein a size of the second matrix is determined based on the dimensions of each of the plurality of micropixels;
encode each first sub-component using a first encoding technique;
encode each first sub-component using an image codec; and
encode each second sub-component using a second encoding technique that is different from the first encoding technique; and
encode each second sub-component using a second encoding technique corresponding to a fixed-length encoding;
wherein the input/output circuitry is further configured to:
wherein the I/O circuitry is further configured to:
transmit each encoded component of the plurality of components to cause display of reconstructed image data based on decoding each encoded component of the plurality of components.
transmit each encoded component of the plurality of components to cause display of reconstructed image data based on decoding each encoded component of the plurality of components.
Although claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12323641 does not specify a using different coding techniques to store different components from different matrices, Lee paragraph 14 teaches using different coding techniques to store different components from different matrices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention disclosed by claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12323641 with the using different coding techniques to store different components from different matrices of Lee in order to more generally define the process by which the invention of U.S. Patent No. 12323641 approaches treatment of different matrix components for encoding.
Claim(s) 13-21 is/are rejected for their dependence on claim(s) 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-21 is/are rejected under non-statutory double patenting rejections as detailed above, but would be allowable if those rejections were overcome, due to containing subject matter allowable for the similar reasons noted in parent application 18/142964 (US 12323641).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 2 contains the limitations regarding accessing image data containing a plurality of macropixels and decomposing the image data into a plurality of components comprising a first subcomponent and second subcomponent, where the first subcomponent has a corresponding matrix with a size determined based image data and the second subcomponent has a second corresponding matrix with a size determined based on image data, the first sub-component is encoded with a first technique, and the second sub-component is encoded with a technique different from the first technique. At the time of the effective filing date of the application, these limitations had not been fully anticipated and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine elements of the prior art to meet this limitation. Independent claim(s) 12 contain(s) allowable subject matter for the same reasons as claim 2. The claim(s) depending on these claim(s) contain allowable subject matter for the reasons concerning these claim(s).
The closest prior art, Budagavi et al. (US 20220377377), Da Silva et al. (US 20220377374), Batselier et al. ("A Constructive Arbitrary-Degree Kronecker Product Decomposition of Tensors," 2016), Lee et al. (US 20070053604), Ichigaya et al. (US 20150245041), Xie et al. (US 20170026653), Tsujimoto (US 6307974), Schwatz et al. (US 20220147595), Gensemer et al. (US 20170284867), Sugiura et al. (US 20200411016), Hammer et al. (US 20240105045), Chen (US 20170221234), Pisarenco et al. (US 20180164229), Rohani et al. (US 20210333385) either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious the above described limitations. Applicant’s 11/25/2024 remarks, pages 10-11 cite, “Even if, assuming arguendo, a person of ordinary skill in the art knew that two variations of a single encoding technique or two different encoding techniques could be used to encode, compress, and transmit image data, such knowledge alone is not an adequate rationale for the proposed modification or to support obviousness. A person of ordinary skill in image encoding and compression may have knowledge of numerous modifications or methods. But the rationale fails to explain, of the numerus possible modifications and methods, what would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Batselier's matrices with Lee's use of two variations of an encoding technique.” The examiner agrees with Applicant’s characterization that the prior art does not appear to contain sufficient suggestion and motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at Applicant’s claimed invention. While the prior art contains teachings regarding decomposition into matrices and using different image coding methods for different components of a stream, the prior art does not contain teachings regarding where image data with macropixels is decomposed into a first subcomponent with a corresponding matrix with a size determined based on image data and the second subcomponent has a second corresponding matrix with a size determined based on image data, the first sub-component is encoded with a first technique, and the second sub-component is encoded with a technique different from the first technique. Further, due to the specialized nature of the decomposition process of the invention, generic teachings of using different coding methods for different components would not provide sufficient linking teaching motivation between the two concepts, as the leap to apply such a teaching to subcomponent decomposition matrices would require undue experimentation. Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date of the application, these limitations had not been fully anticipated and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine elements of the prior art to meet this limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew D Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-3527. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30am - 5:30pm EST.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571) 272-7383. 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.
/MATTHEW DAVID KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights