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 .
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: “a precoding module, configured to”, “a configuration module, configured to”, and “an encoding module, configured to” in claim 10.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claim(s) 20 describe(s) a “computer program product”.
Further, Applicant’s specification, at paragraphs 38 and 120, discloses “an embodiment of the application further provides a computer program product. The computer program product includes an image processing program. When the image processing program is executed by a processor, the foregoing image processing method is implemented" and “The computer program product includes an image processing program. The image processing program may be executed by at least one processor”.
Said language fails to disclose that said “computer program product” includes one or more hardware components and is not merely software. Thus, as evidenced by Applicant’s specification at Paragraphs 38 and 120, it appears that said claim, taken as a whole, read on computer listings per se.
Computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical "things." They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not "acts" being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (US 20240291995 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Li teaches an electronic apparatus, wherein the electronic apparatus comprises a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and capable of running on the processor, and the computer program, when executed by the processor (Paragraph 9), causes the processor to implement operations comprising:
performing a Lookahead precoding on an image to-be-processed (Paragraph 66), and obtaining a specified difference function resulting from the Lookahead precoding (Paragraphs 61-73);
determining an encoding complexity of the image based on the specified difference function, thereby dynamically configuring a maximum quantization group partition depth of the image (Paragraph 61-73; Paragraphs 91-98; Paragraph 122; Paragraphs 323-339); and
formally encoding the image by using the maximum quantization group partition depth (Paragraph 61-73; Paragraphs 91-98; Paragraph 122; Paragraphs 323-339).
Regarding Claim 12, Li teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the obtaining a specified difference function resulting from the precoding comprises: collecting an optimal SATD of each Lookahead unit obtained during the Lookahead precoding of the image; and counting a sum of optimal SATDs of all Lookahead units in the image as the specified difference function (Paragraph 61-73; Paragraphs 91-98; Paragraph 122;).
Regarding Claim 13, Li teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the determining an encoding complexity of the image based on the specified difference function, thereby dynamically configuring a maximum quantization group partition depth of the image comprises: setting two reference thresholds based on basic information and an empirical coefficient of the image, wherein a first reference threshold is less than a second reference threshold; and determining the maximum quantization group partition depth of the image by comparing the specified difference function with the two reference thresholds (Paragraph 61-73; Paragraphs 91-98; Paragraphs 106-111; Paragraph 122; Paragraphs 323-339).
Regarding Claim 14, Li teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the setting two reference thresholds based on basic information and an empirical coefficient of the image comprises: counting an average quantization parameter of the image, and obtaining an image bit depth and an image size; setting a first empirical coefficient and a second empirical coefficient, wherein the first empirical coefficient is less than the second empirical coefficient; and setting the first reference threshold and the second reference threshold according to a preset formula, based on the first empirical coefficient, the second empirical coefficient, the average quantization parameter, the image bit depth, and the image size, wherein the first reference threshold is a product of a reference function multiplied by the first empirical coefficient, the second reference threshold is a product of the reference function multiplied by the second empirical coefficient, and the reference function is positively correlated with the average quantization parameter, the image bit depth, and the image size (Paragraph 61-73; Paragraphs 91-98; Paragraphs 106-111; Paragraph 122; Paragraphs 323-339).
Regarding Claim 15, Li teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the first reference threshold is: Threshold1 = al * 2^(avgQP / 6 - 12 + 2 * (BitDepth - 8))* picSize; and the second reference threshold is: Threshold2 = a2 * 2^(avgQP / 6 - 12 + 2 * (BitDepth - 8)) * picSize, wherein a1 represents the first empirical coefficient, a2 represents the second empirical coefficient, avgQP represents the average quantization parameter, BitDepth represents the image bit depth, and picSize represents the image size (Paragraph 61-73; Paragraphs 91-98; Paragraphs 106-111; Paragraph 122; Paragraphs 323-339).
Regarding Claim 16, Li teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the determining the maximum quantization group partition depth of the image by comparing the specified difference function with the two reference thresholds comprises: when the specified difference function is less than the first reference threshold, setting the maximum quantization group partition depth of the image to 0 (Paragraph 61-73; Paragraphs 91-98; Paragraphs 106-111; Paragraph 122; Paragraphs 323-339).
Regarding Claim 17, Li teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the determining the maximum quantization group partition depth of the image by comparing the specified difference function with the two reference thresholds further comprises: when the specified difference function is greater than or equal to the first reference threshold and less than the second reference threshold, setting the maximum quantization group partition depth of the image to 2 (Paragraph 61-73; Paragraphs 91-98; Paragraphs 106-111; Paragraph 122; Paragraphs 323-339).
Regarding Claim 18, Li teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the determining the maximum quantization group partition depth of the image by comparing the specified difference function with the two reference thresholds further comprises: when the specified difference function is greater than or equal to the second reference threshold, setting the maximum quantization group partition depth of the image to 4 (Paragraph 61-73; Paragraphs 91-98; Paragraphs 106-111; Paragraph 122; Paragraphs 323-339).
Method claims 1-8 are drawn to the method of using corresponding apparatus of claims 11-18 and are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 9, Li teaches the image processing method according to claim 6, wherein the determining the maximum quantization group partition depth of the image by comparing the specified difference function with the two reference thresholds further comprises: when the obtained maximum quantization group partition depth is greater than a preset maximum coding unit partition depth, modifying the maximum quantization group partition depth to the preset maximum coding unit partition depth (Paragraph 61-73; Paragraphs 91-98; Paragraphs 106-111; Paragraphs 122-127; Paragraphs 323-339).
Claim 10 has similar limitations to those of apparatus claim 11, and is rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Non-Transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 19, and computer program product of claim 20 are both drawn to performing the method of claims 1-8 above and are rejected for the same reasons as used above. Li further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores an image processing program, and when the image processing program is executed by a processor, the image processing method according to claim 1 is implemented (Paragraph 10). Li further teaches a computer program product, wherein the computer program product comprises an image processing program, and when the image processing program is executed by a processor, the image processing method according to claim 1 is implemented (Paragraph 9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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 5712727383. 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.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights