Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/573,564

IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Dec 22, 2023
Examiner
CARTER, AARON W
Art Unit
2661
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
BEIJING ZITIAO NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
866 granted / 1017 resolved
+23.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
1034
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.1%
-29.9% vs TC avg
§103
28.1%
-11.9% vs TC avg
§102
30.2%
-9.8% vs TC avg
§112
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1017 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . Response to Preliminary Amendment In response to applicant’s amendment received on 12/22/23, all requested changes to the specification and claims have been entered. Claims 1-14 were previously pending. Claims 15-23 have been added. Claims 10, 13 and 14 have been cancelled. Claims 1-9, 11, 12 and 15-23 are currently pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 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 2-9 and 15-23 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. Regarding claim 2, the limitations state that “the cropping the first image data to the second image data comprises…determining a target region in the first image data…converting a texture of the target region…”. However, it does not then state that the target region of the first image data is then cropped to the second image data. Therefore it’s unclear if these limitation are performed in addition to “cropping the first image data to the second image data”, if they meant as some sort of replacement for the cropping, or if they are performed before or after cropping. In other words, it’s not clear how these limitations correspond to the cropping process. Therefore the limitations are generally vague and indefinite. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected by the virtue of their dependency upon rejected claim 2. Regarding claim 5, the limitation of “before cropping the first image data to the second image data…adjusting the ratio of the second image data” is vague and indefinite. It’s the Examiner’s understanding that “cropping the first image data to the second image data” means that the first image data is cropped thereby creating the second image data. As such, if the second image data does not come into existence until after the first image data is cropped then it is unclear how can the ratio of the second image data be adjusted before cropping? Claim 6 is rejected by the virtue of it’s dependency upon rejected claim 5. Regarding claim 7, the limitation of “before the cropping the first image data to the second image data…adjusting the ratio of the second image data” is vague and indefinite. It’s the Examiner’s understanding that “cropping the first image data to the second image data” means that the first image data is cropped thereby creating the second image data. As such, if the second image data does not come into existence until after the first image data is cropped then it is unclear how can the ratio of the second image data be adjusted before cropping? Until otherwise indicated, the Examiner will interpret the limitation of “receive a target ratio…” as occurring before cropping and then the adjusting to be the cropping process. Claims 8 and 21 recites the limitation "the adjusted ratio of the second image data " in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically “the adjusted ratio” is not disclosed in parent claim 1 or 11, it is first introduced in claims 7 and/or 18. Claims 9 and 22 are rejected by the virtue of their dependency upon rejected claims 8 and 21. Regarding claim 15, the limitations state that “the cropping the first image data to the second image data comprises…determining a target region in the first image data…converting a texture of the target region…”. However, it does not then state that the target region of the first image data is then cropped to the second image data. Therefore it’s unclear if these limitation are performed in addition to “cropping the first image data to the second image data”, if they meant as some sort of replacement for the cropping, or if they are performed before or after cropping. In other words, it’s not clear how these limitations correspond to the cropping process. Therefore the limitations are generally vague and indefinite. Claims 16 and 17 are rejected by the virtue of their dependency upon rejected claim 15. Regarding claim 18, the limitation of “before cropping the first image data to the second image data…adjusting the ratio of the second image data” is vague and indefinite. It’s the Examiner’s understanding that “cropping the first image data to the second image data” means that the first image data is cropped thereby creating the second image data. As such, if the second image data does not come into existence until after the first image data is cropped then it is unclear how can the ratio of the second image data be adjusted before cropping? Claim 19 is rejected by the virtue of its dependency upon rejected claim 18. Regarding claim 20, the limitation of “before the cropping the first image data to the second image data…adjusting the ratio of the second image data” is vague and indefinite. It’s the Examiner’s understanding that “cropping the first image data to the second image data” means that the first image data is cropped thereby creating the second image data. As such, if the second image data does not come into existence until after the first image data is cropped then it is unclear how can the ratio of the second image data be adjusted before cropping? Until otherwise indicated, the Examiner will interpret the limitation of “receive a target ratio…” as occurring before cropping and then the adjusting to be the cropping process. Regarding claim 23, the limitations state that “the cropping the first image data to the second image data comprises…determining a target region in the first image data…converting a texture of the target region…”. However, it does not then state that the target region of the first image data is then cropped to the second image data. Therefore it’s unclear if these limitation are performed in addition to “cropping the first image data to the second image data”, if they meant as some sort of replacement for the cropping, or if they are performed before or after cropping. In other words, it’s not clear how these limitations correspond to the cropping process. Therefore the limitations are generally vague and indefinite. 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. Claims 1, 7, 11, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 112073765 to Yu et al. (“Yu”) (referring to the translation provided with the IDS filed on 12/22/23). Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses an image processing method, comprising: calling an image acquisition device by an application program to obtain first image data (paragraphs 116, 126, 134-139, 153, 190-192, wherein the user instructs/calls a camera to obtain first image data using a preview and display application program); cropping the first image data to second image data, wherein a ratio of the first image data is different from a ratio of the second image data, the ratio of the first image data is a ratio supported by the image acquisition device, and the ratio of the second image data is a ratio supported by the application program (paragraphs 115, 116, 122-127, 134-139, 154, 167, 192, wherein the first image data, having a first aspect ratio (e.g. 4:3) supported by the camera, is cut or intercepted (i.e. cropped), to obtain second image data having a different aspect ratio (e.g. 16:9) supported by the preview and display application program); performing effect processing on the second image data (paragraphs 72, 119, 138-141, 155-158, 196 wherein special effects are applied to the cropped/second image data); performing first processing on the second image data subjected to the effect processing, wherein the first processing comprises at least one of displaying in an interface of the application program, encoding and storing (paragraphs 126-127, 138-139, 156-159, 197 , wherein the second image data, having been subject to special effects processing is displayed, is encoded and stored). Regarding claim 7, Yu discloses the method according to any of claim 1, wherein before the cropping the first image data to second image data, the method further comprises: receiving a target ratio input into the application program; adjusting the ratio of the second image data to the target ratio (paragraphs 115, 116, 121-127, 134-139, 154, 167, 192, wherein a user selected target ratio is received and the first image data is adjusted to the target ratio creating the second image data). Regarding claim 11, Yu discloses an electronic device, comprising: at least one processor and a memory (paragraphs 205 and 206); the memory storing computer-executable instructions (paragraph 206); the at least one processor executing the computer-executable instructions stored in the memory (paragraph 207), to cause the electronic device to implement the method perform operations comprising: calling an image acquisition device by an application program to obtain first image data (paragraphs 116, 126, 134-139, 153, 190-192, wherein the user instructs/calls a camera to obtain first image data using a preview and display application program); cropping the first image data to second image data, wherein a ratio of the first image data is different from a ratio of the second image data, the ratio of the first image data is a ratio supported by the image acquisition device, and the ratio of the second image data is a ratio supported by the application program (paragraphs 115, 116, 122-127, 134-139, 154, 167, 192, wherein the first image data, having a first aspect ratio (e.g. 4:3) supported by the camera, is cut or intercepted (i.e. cropped), to obtain second image data having a different aspect ratio (e.g. 16:9) supported by the preview and display application program); performing effect processing on the second image data (paragraphs 72, 119, 138-141, 155-158, 196 wherein special effects are applied to the cropped/second image data); performing first processing on the second image data subjected to the effect processing, wherein the first processing comprises at least one of displaying in an interface of the application program, encoding and storing (paragraphs 126-127, 138-139, 156-159, 197 , wherein the second image data, having been subject to special effects processing is displayed, is encoded and stored). Regarding claim 12, Yu discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein computer-executable instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause a computing device to perform operations (paragraphs 205-209) comprising: calling an image acquisition device by an application program to obtain first image data (paragraphs 116, 126, 134-139, 153, 190-192, wherein the user instructs/calls a camera to obtain first image data using a preview and display application program); cropping the first image data to second image data, wherein a ratio of the first image data is different from a ratio of the second image data, the ratio of the first image data is a ratio supported by the image acquisition device, and the ratio of the second image data is a ratio supported by the application program (paragraphs 115, 116, 122-127, 134-139, 154, 167, 192, wherein the first image data, having a first aspect ratio (e.g. 4:3) supported by the camera, is cut or intercepted (i.e. cropped), to obtain second image data having a different aspect ratio (e.g. 16:9) supported by the preview and display application program); performing effect processing on the second image data (paragraphs 72, 119, 138-141, 155-158, 196 wherein special effects are applied to the cropped/second image data); performing first processing on the second image data subjected to the effect processing, wherein the first processing comprises at least one of displaying in an interface of the application program, encoding and storing (paragraphs 126-127, 138-139, 156-159, 197 , wherein the second image data, having been subject to special effects processing is displayed, is encoded and stored). Regarding claim 20, Yu disclose the electronic device according to claim 11, wherein before the cropping the first image data to second image data, the operation further comprise: receiving a target ratio input into the application program; adjusting the ratio of the second image data to the target ratio (paragraphs 115, 116, 121-127, 134-139, 154, 167, 192, wherein a user selected target ratio is received and the first image data is adjusted to the target ratio creating the second image data). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON W CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7445. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm (Mon - Fri). 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, John Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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. /AARON W CARTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 22, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597229
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586177
DAMAGE INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, DAMAGE INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586199
DIFFUSION-BASED OPEN-VOCABULARY SEGMENTATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586278
AI-DRIVEN PET RECONSTRUCTION FROM HISTOIMAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579636
IMAGE PROCESSING DEVICE, PRINTING SYSTEM, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+8.3%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1017 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