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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed 26 September 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 4-6, 8-12, 16-18, and 20 have been amended and claims 21-24 have been cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-20 remain pending for examination.
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 limitations are:
The “first group of modules is configured to: receive a subset of the input data elements representing image data in the first format; and perform a plurality of operations to convert the subset of the input data elements representing image data in the first format to intermediate elements, in claims 1, 11-13.
The “second group of modules is configured to: receive a subset of the intermediate elements, wherein each intermediate element of the received subset of the intermediate elements is from a different module of the first group of modules; and perform the plurality of operations to convert the subset of the intermediate elements to a subset of the output data elements representing image data in the second format, in claims 1, 11-13.
“a plurality of modules organised into a first group of modules and a second group of modules, wherein the first group of modules and the second group of modules each comprise four modules, wherein each module of the first group of modules is configured to: receive a subset of the input data elements representing image data in the first format; and perform a plurality of operations to convert the subset of the input data elements representing image data in the first format to intermediate elements, wherein each intermediate element is derived from the subset of the input data elements representing image data in the first format using one of the plurality of operations; and wherein each module of the second group of modules is configured to: receive a subset of the intermediate elements, wherein each intermediate element of the received subset of the intermediate elements is from a different module of the first group of modules; and perform the plurality of operations to convert the subset of the intermediate elements to a subset of the output data elements representing image data in the second format, in claims 1, 11-13.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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.
Claims 1, 11-13 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations a “plurality of modules”, a “first group of modules” and a “second group of modules” 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 functions of “receive a subset of the input data elements representing image data in the first format; and perform a plurality of operations to convert the subset of the input data elements representing image data in the first format to intermediate elements,” as performed by the first group of modules of the plurality of modules and “receive e a subset of the intermediate elements, wherein each intermediate element of the received subset of the intermediate elements is from a different module of the first group of modules; and perform the plurality of operations to convert the subset of the intermediate elements to a subset of the output data elements representing image data in the second format,” as performed by the second group of modules of the plurality of modules.
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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3, and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by AMER ET AL: "A proposed hardware reference model for spatial transformation and quantization in H.264” JOURNAL OF VISUAL COMMUNICATION AND IMAGE REPRESENTATION, ACADEMIC PRESS, INC, US, vol. 17, no. 2, 1 April 2006 (2006-04-01), pages 533-552, XP005312637, ISSN: 1047-3203, DOI: 10.1016/J.JVCIR.2005.05.011 (Hereinafter referred to as “Amer”), provided in IDS filed September 26, 2025.
Regarding claim 1 (Original), Amer discloses a hardware block for converting input data elements representing image data in a first format to output data elements representing image data in a second format (Amer: Hardware Forward Transform Block. Section 3.1, pages 541, Fig. 4); wherein the hardware block comprises:
a plurality of modules organized (Amer: Blocks A and B, Page, 541, Fig. 4) into a first group of modules (Amer: Block A. Page 541; Fig. 4) and a second group of modules (Amer: Block B. Page 541; Fig. 4), wherein the first group of modules and the second group of modules each comprise four modules (Amer: Block A, input lines for X00, X10, X20, X30. Page 541; Fig. 4) , wherein each module of the first group of modules is configured to:
receive a subset of the input data elements representing image data in the first format (Amer: Block A, format X00, X10, X20, X30, Page, 541; Fig. 4); and
perform a plurality of operations to convert the subset of the input data elements representing image data in the first format to intermediate elements, wherein each intermediate element is derived from the subset of the input data elements representing image data in the first format using one of the plurality of operations (Amer: Block A. S00, S10, S20, S30, Page 541; Fig. 4); and wherein each module of the second group of modules (Amer: Block B; Page, 541; Fig. 4) is configured to:
receive a subset of the intermediate elements (Amer: Block A, inputs S00, S01, S02, S03, Page 541; Fig. 4), wherein each intermediate element of the received subset of the intermediate elements is from a different module of the first group of modules (Amer: Page 541; Fig. 4); and
perform the plurality of operations to convert the subset of the intermediate elements to a subset of the output data elements representing image data in the second format (Forward transform transforms image signals X00-X30 to signals W00-W03).
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Amer discloses the hardware block of claim 1, wherein each intermediate element is derived from the subset of the input data elements representing image data in the first format using a distinct one of the plurality of operations (Amer: “+” and “-” operations. Page 541; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Amer discloses the hardware block of claim 2, wherein each received subset of the intermediate elements is derived from the subset of the input data elements representing image data in the first format using the same distinct one of the plurality operations (Amer: All inputs use a “+” operation. Page 541; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9 (Currently Amended), Amer discloses the hardware block of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of operations perform a multi-dimensional Hadamard direct decomposition transform (Amer: Architecture of the 4X4 (and 2X2) Hadamard transform. Section 3, Pages 539-341).
Regarding claim 10 (Currently Amended), Amer discloses the hardware block of claim 1 wherein the subset of the input data elements representing image data in the first format and subset of the output data elements representing image data in the second format each comprise four data elements (Amer: Page 541; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended), Amer discloses the hardware block of claim 1 wherein the first group of modules and the second group of modules are the same (Amer: Page 541; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12 (Currently Amended), Amer discloses the hardware block of claim 1 wherein the intermediate element derived in at least one module of the first group of modules is outputted from the hardware block (Amer: Pages 540- 541, Figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 13 (Original), claim 1 is substantially similar to claim 13. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 14 (Original), claim 2 is substantially similar to claim 14. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 15 (Original), claim 3 is substantially similar to claim 15. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 4-8 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amer in further view of Rossato et al., US 20130314496 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Rossato”), provided in IDS filed September 26, 2025.
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Amer does not explicitly teach the hardware block of claim1, wherein the input data elements representing image data in the first format are residual elements and the output data elements representing image data in the second format are a set of transformed elements indicative of an extent of spatial correlation in the residual elements.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rossato discloses input data elements representing image data in the first format are residual elements (Rossato: Residuals 300. Figs. 3A and 3D) and the output data elements representing image data in the second format are a set of transformed elements (Rossato: Transformed Residuals 350. Figs. 3A and 3D) indicative of an extent of spatial correlation in the residual elements (Rossato: “[S]patial correlation of residuals within a respective block of picture elements a domain transformation is performed (for example into a frequency domain).” ¶ [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Amer with the input data elements representing image data in the first format are residual elements and the output data elements representing image data in the second format are a set of transformed elements indicative of an extent of spatial correlation in the residual elements, as taught by Rossato, in order to identify, simplify, encode and transmit differences in residuals, as disclosed in Rossato, ¶ [0019].
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), Amer does not explicitly teach hardware block of claim 1, wherein the output data elements representing image data in the second format are residual elements and the input data elements representing image data in the first format are a set of transformed elements indicative of an extent of spatial correlation in the residual elements.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rossato discloses output data elements representing image data in the second format are residual elements (Rossato: “FIG. 4A, 4B 4C, 4D and 4E are example diagrams describing inverse decomposition.” ¶ [0073]. Output residuals 480. Figs. 4B and 4C) and the input data elements representing image data in the first format are a set of transformed elements (Rossato: “Quantized input 430. Figs. 4B and 4C) indicative of an extent of spatial correlation in the residual elements (Rossato: “[S]patial correlation of residuals within a respective block of picture elements a domain transformation is performed (for example into a frequency domain.” ¶ [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Amer with output data elements representing image data in the second format are residual elements and the input data elements representing image data in the first format are a set of transformed elements indicative of an extent of spatial correlation in the residual elements, as taught by Rossato, in order to identify, simplify, encode and transmit differences in residuals, as disclosed in Rossato, ¶ [0019].
Regarding claim 6 (Currently Amended), Amer does not explicitly teach, the hardware block of claim 4, wherein the set of transformed elements indicate one or more of average, horizontal, vertical and diagonal relationship between neighbouring residual elements.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rossato discloses a set of transformed elements indicate one or more of average, horizontal, vertical and diagonal relationship between neighbouring residual elements (Rossato: Transformed residuals of directional components A, H, V and D 320 and Predicted Average 340 of directional components. Figs. 3A and 3D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Amer with Rossato, set of transformed elements indicate one or more of average, horizontal, vertical and diagonal relationship between neighbouring residual elements, as taught by Rossato, in order to achieve high compression ratios, as disclosed by Rossato, ¶¶ [0018], [0154].
Regarding 7 (Original) Amer discloses the hardware block of claim 6, wherein the set of transformed elements are based on a Hadamard direct decomposition transform (Amer: Architecture of the Hadamard transform and quantization. Section 3, Pages 539-341).
Regarding claim 8 (Currently Amended), Amer does not explicitly teach, the hardware block of claim 4, wherein the residual elements are based on a difference between a first rendition of an image associated with the image data at a level of quality in a tiered hierarchy having multiple levels of quality and a second rendition of the image at the same level of quality.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rossato discloses residual elements are based on a difference between a first rendition of an image associated with the image data at a level of quality in a tiered hierarchy (Rossato: “[S]ignals encoded in a tiered hierarchy of levels of quality ("LOQ").” ¶ [0035]) having multiple levels of quality and a second rendition of the image at the same level of quality (Rossato: “[R]endition of the signal (X11, X12, X21, X22) at the level of quality #1 [LOQ#1]” and “rendition of the signal P11, P12, P21, P22 at the level of quality #1 [LOQ#1].” ¶ [0186]. Fig. 3F)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Amer with the residual elements are based on a difference between a first rendition of an image associated with the image data at a level of quality in a tiered hierarchy having multiple levels of quality and a second rendition of the image at the same level of quality, as taught by Rossato, , in order to achieve high compression ratios, as disclosed by Rossato, ¶¶ [0018].
Regarding claim 16 (Original), claim 4 is substantially similar to claim 16. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding claim 17 (Original), claim 5 is substantially similar to claim 17. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding claim 18 (Original), claim 6 is substantially similar to claim 18. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding claim 19 (Original), claim 7 is substantially similar to claim 19. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Regarding claim 20 (Original), claim 8 is substantially similar to claim 20. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEIRDRE L BEASLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0452. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 a.m. -5 p.m.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/DLB/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2482
/BEHROOZ M SENFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights