Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/523,855

IMAGE DATA ENCODING/DECODING METHOD AND APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Nov 29, 2023
Examiner
WILLIAMS, JEFFERY A
Art Unit
2488
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
B1 Institute of Image Technology, Inc.
OA Round
7 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
768 granted / 920 resolved
+25.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
967
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.0%
-32.0% vs TC avg
§103
43.7%
+3.7% vs TC avg
§102
21.9%
-18.1% vs TC avg
§112
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 920 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 6, and 8 recite the limitation “a single syntax element” for indicating a number of partitioning times for a current block. The applicant’s originally filed specification fails to disclose this limitation. The applicant argues [0611] and [0615] of the applicant’s specification as disclosing the aforementioned limitation (see remarks pg. 6 para. 1 -pg. 7 para. 3). The examiner respectfully disagrees. [0611] teaches type-based partitioning may generate partitioning information with index information, however, [0611] does not limit the index information to a “single syntax element”. [0615] teaches a block acquired through the type- based partitioning may no longer be further partitioned. However, [0615] does not teach a “single syntax element” is used for partitioning. Further, [0622] teaches tree-based and type-based partitioning may be used in conjunction. Therefore, in view of [0615] and claims 1, 6, and8, there may exist a case where tree-based partitioning is first performed and subsequent type based partitioning is performed on a block with the type based partitioning occurring after at least one other syntax element is parsed for performing the tree-based partitioning. Claims 2, 3, and 5 are rejected based on their respective dependencies upon claim 1. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Duvivier (US 2005/0286634) (FIG. 10, label 258, [0066], a table containing unique identifiers ranging from 0-258 for each respective partition type of the 129 partition types). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7579. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00. 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, Sath Perungavoor can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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. /JEFFERY A WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 29, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 30, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
May 06, 2024
Response Filed
May 14, 2024
Final Rejection — §112
Jul 17, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 08, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 09, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 19, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 21, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Aug 21, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 26, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 10, 2024
Final Rejection — §112
Feb 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 28, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 06, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jun 20, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 09, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Oct 15, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 12, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603981
IMAGE DATA ENCODING/DECODING METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596182
OPTICAL SYSTEM FOR LIGHT DETECTION AND RANGING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12581040
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COORDINATED COLLECTION OF STREET-LEVEL IMAGE DATA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581049
IMAGE DATA ENCODING/DECODING METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12556824
IMAGE DATA ENCODING/DECODING METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+9.0%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 920 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month