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 .
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:
in claim 11: media analysis module” and encoding module
in claim 15: deep learning model training module
in claim 16: entropy maximization module
in claim 17: a media analysis module
in claim 20: comprising a module
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
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.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,382,051. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the referenced patent recite the same subject matter presently claimed. Claims 1-10 of the present application recite broader limitations of the narrower combinations already claimed in the referenced patent. Claims 11-20 change the corresponding patented method operations as functional system modules, without reciting additional structure, function, or result sufficient to render the presently claimed systems patentably distinct from the patented methods. The correspondence between the present claims and the claims of the referenced patent is set forth below.
Present Application
(claims)
Referenced Patent
(claims)
1
1
2
1
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
3
7
6
8
7
9
7
10
7
11
1
12
1
13
2
14
3
15
5
16
6
17
1
18
4
19
1
20
1
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the selected dimensional manifold”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 11, 12, 14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fejgin et al. (US20210082444A1), hereinafter referred to as Fejgin, in view of Bell et al. (US5706402), hereinafter referred to as Bell further, in view of Malamal Vadakital (US20190052937A1), hereinafter referred to as Malamal Vadakital.
.Regarding claim 11, Fejgin discloses system for compressing media content, comprising:
a media analysis module configured to perform analysis on input media (See ¶[004] and Fig. 2 disclosing that the machine learning module 210 performs analysis on the input audio signal);
a deep learning model training module (See ¶[0042] disclosing that the machine learning module 210 may be configured to implement one or more neural networks, such as the neural networks disclosed herein);
a compression application module (See ¶[0042] disclosing that block 550 involves encoding, via the audio encoder, the currently-input audio signal in a compressed audio format)
Fejgin does not explicitly disclose an entropy maximization module; and an encoding module configured to package the compressed media into standard format containers.
However, Bell from the same or similar endeavor of data compression discloses an entropy maximization module (See Col. 1:7-23 disclosing maximizing joint input/output entropy through gradient ascent to minimize mutual information in the outputs.).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Fejgin to add the teachings of Bell as above, in order to minimize mutual information in the outputs (Bell, Col. 1:7-23).
Furthermore, Malamal Vadakital from the same or similar endeavor of data compression discloses an encoding module configured to package the compressed media into standard format containers (See ¶[0153] disclosing pack at least one coded media stream into a container file; and ¶[0069] disclosing media file format standard).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Fejgin and Bell to add the teachings of Malamal Vadakital as above, in order to facilitate the interchanging and editing of the media, as well as the recording of received real-time streams to a file (Malamal Vadakital, [0003]).
Regarding claim 12, Fejgin, Bell and Malamal Vadakital disclose all the limitations of claim 11, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Fejgin discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the analysis includes spectral analysis, statistical analysis, perceptual analysis, and/or temporal-spatial correlation analysis (See ¶¶ [0059] and [0066]).
Regarding claim 14, Fejgin, Bell and Malamal Vadakital disclose all the limitations of claim 12, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Fejgin discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the perceptual analysis includes implementation of psychoacoustic models based on critical bands and masking effects for audio content, application of visual saliency models to identify perceptually important regions in video content, and/or incorporation of Just Noticeable Difference (JND) models to determine perceptual thresholds for different media components (See ¶[0066]).
Regarding claim 16, Fejgin, Bell and Malamal Vadakital disclose all the limitations of claim 11, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Fejgin does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 11, wherein the entropy maximization module is operable to: compute Shannon entropy for each dimension or feature in the representation of the selected dimensional manifold, apply Independent Component Analysis (ICA) to separate statistically independent components, implement the Principle of Maximum Entropy to optimize distribution of information across the selected dimensional manifold, and/or
develop an adaptive quantization scheme that allocates more bits to high-entropy components.
However, Bell from the same or similar endeavor of data compression discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the entropy maximization module is operable to: compute Shannon entropy for each dimension or feature in the representation of the selected dimensional manifold, apply Independent Component Analysis (ICA) to separate statistically independent components, implement the Principle of Maximum Entropy to optimize distribution of information across the selected dimensional manifold, and/or develop an adaptive quantization scheme that allocates more bits to high-entropy components (See Abstract).
The motivation for combining Fejgin, Bell and Malamal Vadakital has been discussed in connection with claim 11, above.
Regarding claim 20, Fejgin and Bell disclose all the limitations of claim 17, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Fejgin does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 17, further comprising a module configured to package the compressed media into a standard format.
However, Malamal Vadakital from the same or similar endeavor of data compression discloses the system of claim 17, further comprising a module configured to package the compressed media into a standard format (See ¶[0153] disclosing pack at least one coded media stream into a container file; and ¶[0069] disclosing media file format standard)..
The motivation for combining Fejgin, Bell and Malamal Vadakital has been discussed in connection with claim 11, above.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fejgin, in view of Bell, and further, in view of Malamal Vadakital and Ekstrand et al. (US20240105191A1), hereinafter referred to as Ekstrand.
Regarding claim 13, Fejgin, Bell and Malamal Vadakital disclose all the limitations of claim 12, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Fejgin does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 12, wherein the spectral analysis includes application of a Short-Time Fourier Transform (STFT) with overlapping windows for audio content, employment of a 3D Fourier Transform on groups of frames for video content, and/or implementation of a Wavelet Transform for multi-resolution analysis of both audio and video content.
However, Ekstrand from the same or similar endeavor of data compression discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the spectral analysis includes application of a Short-Time Fourier Transform (STFT) with overlapping windows for audio content, employment of a 3D Fourier Transform on groups of frames for video content, and/or implementation of a Wavelet Transform for multi-resolution analysis of both audio and video content (See ¶[0057]).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Fejgin, Bell and Malamal Vadakital to add the teachings of Ekstrand as above, in order to obtain a succession of overlapped spectral frames (Ekstrand, [0057]).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fejgin, in view of Bell.
Regarding claim 17, Fejgin, discloses a system for compressing media content, comprising: a media analysis module configured to perform analysis on input media (See ¶[004] and Fig. 2 disclosing that the machine learning module 210 performs analysis on the input audio signal);
a deep learning model training module (See ¶[0042] disclosing that the machine learning module 210 may be configured to implement one or more neural networks, such as the neural networks disclosed herein);
a compression application module (See ¶[0042] disclosing that block 550 involves encoding, via the audio encoder, the currently-input audio signal in a compressed audio format)
Fejgin does not explicitly disclose an entropy maximization module;
However, Bell from the same or similar endeavor of data compression discloses an entropy maximization module (See Col. 1:7-23 disclosing maximizing joint input/output entropy through gradient ascent to minimize mutual information in the outputs.).
The motivation for combining Fejgin, and Bell has been discussed in connection with claim 11, above.
Regarding claim 19, Fejgin and Bell disclose all the limitations of claim 17, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Fejgin discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the analysis includes spectral analysis, statistical analysis, perceptual analysis, and/or temporal-spatial correlation analysis (See ¶¶[0059] and [0066]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fejgin, in view of Bell further, in view of Brehmer (US20230074979A1), hereinafter referred to as Brehmer.
Regarding claim 18, Fejgin, and Bell disclose all the limitations of claim 17, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Fejgin does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 17, further comprising a manifold selection and optimization module.
However, Ekstrand from the same or similar endeavor of data compression discloses the system of claim 17, further comprising a manifold selection and optimization module (See ¶¶[0041], [0045] and [0046]).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Fejgin and Bell to add the teachings of Brehmer as above, in order to minimize the average rate-distortion loss over a dataset of datapoints, such as image and/or video datapoints and reduce the size of the subspace of model parameters (Brehmer, ¶¶ [0041] and [0045]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for additional references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM (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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FABIO S LIMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights