Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/754,233

IMAGE PROCESSING DEVICE AND IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 26, 2024
Examiner
BECKER, JOSEPH W
Art Unit
2483
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Sony Group Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
278 granted / 386 resolved
+14.0% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
408
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.1%
-35.9% vs TC avg
§103
56.9%
+16.9% vs TC avg
§102
17.9%
-22.1% vs TC avg
§112
8.9%
-31.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 386 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 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. Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US 2019/0281294 from IDS, supporting evidence by Liu et al. US 2020/0021834 from IDS Kim discloses: 1. and under similar rationale 7 and complementary rationale 8 and 9. An image processing device (0135-9) comprising: a decoding circuit configured to decode a bitstream to generate a decoded image according to a block structure having a unified hierarchical structure of a transformation block, a prediction block, and a coding block, wherein the transformation block of the decoded image generated by the decoding circuit (0036: That is, in ITU-T H.265, an array of pixel difference values may be sub-divided for purposes of generating transform coefficients (e.g., four 8×8 transforms may be applied to a 16×16 array of residual values), for each component of video data, such sub-divisions may be referred to as Transform Blocks (TBs). Currently in JEM, when a QTBT partitioning structure is used, residual values corresponding to a CB are used to generate transform coefficients without further partitioning. That is, in JEM a QTBT leaf node may be analogous to both a PB and TB in ITU-T H.265. Thus, JEM enables rectangular CB predictions for intra and inter predictions.; While Kim is silent about unified hierarchical structure it would be have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above as supporting evidence Liu teaches 0087: A QTBT structure unifies the concepts of the coding unit (CU), prediction unit (PU), and transform unit (TU) and supports more flexibility for CU partition shapes.); a determination circuit configured to determine whether to apply a deblocking filter according to a block size of a sub-block obtained by dividing the transform block (0040-52; Fig. 5; Fig. 10: block size condition 1008); and a filter circuit configured to apply the deblocking filter to pixels on a line orthogonal to a block boundary (0040-52; Fig. 5). 8 and 9. Additionally have a sub-block circuit configured to obtain a sub-block by dividing a transform block on which intra prediction is performed in a locally decoded image that is locally decoded when an image is encoded (0036) 2. The image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the filter circuit is configured to apply the deblocking filter to pixels on a line orthogonal to the sub-block boundary in accordance with a boundary strength that is set according to characteristics of adjacent sub-blocks adjacent to each other across the sub-block boundary (0047: If one of the blocks (P or Q) has an intra prediction mode, then Bs=2; fig. 5). 3. The image processing device according to claim 2, wherein the filter circuit is configured to apply the deblocking filter to pixels on a line orthogonal to the sub-block boundary of a sub-block obtained by dividing the transform block on which intra prediction is performed (0040-52; Fig. 5). 4. The image processing device according to claim 3, wherein the filter circuit is configured to apply the deblocking filter to pixels on a line orthogonal to the sub-block boundary in accordance with a boundary strength that is set to be the same as a block boundary of the transform block on which intra prediction is performed (0079: For example, filter unit 300 may be configured to either perform filtering or skip filtering based on a block size condition.). 5. The image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the filter circuit is configured to apply the deblocking filter of a filter type set according to the block size of the sub-block (Fig. 12: second block size condition 1024, first filter type 1016, fourth filter type 1026; 0129: In one example, the second block size condition (1024) may include any of the minimum size conditions for video block P and/or Q described above.). Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Andersson et al. US 2021/0329266 from IDS Kim discloses: 6. The image processing device according to claim 1, Kim does not explicitly disclose the following, however Andersson teaches wherein the filter circuit is configured such that pixels to which the deblocking filter is applied at one sub-block boundary do not include pixels referenced in application of the deblocking filter at another sub-block boundary. (0250: By doing the deblocking first internally in the block can help to apply longer deblocking filters on the block boundary. By doing the filtering of internal sub-block boundaries inside the block without overlap in filtering of other internal sub-block boundaries inside the block such filtering can be performed in parallel.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to do the filtering of internal sub-block boundaries inside the block without overlap in filtering of other internal sub-block boundaries inside the block such filtering can be performed in parallel (Andersson 0250) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W BECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7301. The examiner can normally be reached flexible usually 10-6. 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, Joseph G Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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. /JOSEPH W BECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 26, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 06, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 13, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 13, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598313
EXTENDED LOW-FREQUENCY NON-SEPARABLE TRANSFORM (LFNST) DESIGNS WITH WORST-CASE COMPLEXITY HANDLING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12556684
VIDEO CODING WITH GUIDED SEPARATE POST-PROCESSING STEPS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12526394
MULTI-VIEW DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12519985
Method of Coding and Decoding Images, Coding and Decoding Device and Computer Programs Corresponding Thereto
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12519973
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PERFORMING MOTION COMPENSATION FOR BI-PREDICTION IN VIDEO CODING
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 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
72%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+25.6%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 386 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