Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/706,408

IMAGE PROCESSING SYSTEM

Final Rejection §102§112
Filed
May 01, 2024
Examiner
TSENG, CHENG YUAN
Art Unit
2615
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
703 granted / 835 resolved
+22.2% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
865
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.4%
-34.6% vs TC avg
§103
28.1%
-11.9% vs TC avg
§102
39.1%
-0.9% vs TC avg
§112
15.4%
-24.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 835 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) 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. Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 11 and 17 recite a negative limitation "the image processing is not performed in the second region". The negative limitation is interpreted as intention to define the invention in terms of what it was not, rather than pointing out the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(i). Claim 11 recites “the image processing is not performed in the second region”. However, in claim 1, the claim states “execute image processing for reducing a definition or a frame frequency … to generate a second image”. The feature of “execute image processing to generate a second image” was required in independent claim 1, but the dependent claim 11 requires “the image processing is not performed in the second region” Such contradicted operations is considered as indefinite. Claim 17 has similar issue. 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)(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, 7 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ganguly (US 2016/0,343,352). Referring to claims 1 and 12, Ganguly discloses an image processing system (fig. 2a, system; fig. 8, system) comprising a display portion (fig. 2a, display 100), an input portion (fig. 2a, source 206a), an arithmetic portion (fig. 2a, control unit 202), and an image processing portion (fig. 2a, graphic controller 204), wherein the input portion is to obtain positional information (para.0037, user parameters from source 206) on pointing operation by a user (fig. 5b, swiping), wherein the arithmetic portion is to define a first region (fig. 5b, resolution at 1080p) where the user performs a swipe operation (fig. 5b, swiping) and a second region (fig. 5b, resolution at 720p) other than the first region in accordance with the positional information, wherein the image processing portion is to execute image processing (fig. 5a, resolution required 502/504) for reducing a definition (para.0028, modified resolution in gesture selected portions; fig. 5b, modify from 1080p to 720p) of a first image (fig. 5b, 1080p resolution region) in the first region to generate a second image (fig. 5b, 720p resolution region), and wherein the display portion is to display the second image (fig. 5b, 720p resolution region). As to claims 2-3 and 13-14, Ganguly discloses the system of claim 1, comprising a communication portion (fig. 3, I/O interface 300; para.0032, communication network), wherein the communication portion is to communicate with a server (fig. 8, computer system 800), and wherein the image processing portion and arithmetic portion are provided in the server (fig. 8, processor 802). As to claims 7 and 15, Ganguly discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the input portion comprises a touch sensor (fig. 5b, swiping), and wherein the touch sensor comprises a capacitive sensor (para.0063, touch screen). As to claims 10 and 16, Ganguly discloses the system of claim 1, wherein pixel density of the display portion is higher than or equal to 50 ppi and lower than or equal to 1500 ppi (para.0005, pixels/resolutions of display). As to claims 11 and 17, Ganguly discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the image processing is not performed in the second region (fig. 5b, 1080p resolution processing not performed in 720p region). Conclusion Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, this action is made final. See MPEP §706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire in THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filled within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date of the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136 (a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than six months from the date of this final action. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Cheng-Yuan Tseng whose telephone number is (571)272-9772, and fax number is (571)273-9772. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 09:00 to 17:30 Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Harrington can be reached on (571)272-2330. 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. 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. /CHENG YUAN TSENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 01, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Feb 02, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 02, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602844
Graphics Processor
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12586285
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR MARKERLESS FACIAL MOTION CAPTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579415
Area-Efficient Convolutional Block
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12572355
MODULAR ADDITION INSTRUCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567173
Infant 2D Pose Estimation and Posture Detection System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+15.7%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 835 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