Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 01, 2026
Application No. 19/034,260

Region Of Interest Encryption And Processing for Media Items

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Jan 22, 2025
Priority
Mar 11, 2024 — provisional 63/563,755
Examiner
LEE, Y YOUNG
Art Unit
2485
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Apple Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
48%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
Est. Remaining
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 48% of resolved cases
48%
Career Allowance Rate
205 granted / 423 resolved
-9.5% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 4m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
443
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.8%
-32.2% vs TC avg
§103
35.4%
-4.6% vs TC avg
§102
35.6%
-4.4% vs TC avg
§112
9.5%
-30.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 423 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 6/22/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups III-IV are also drawn to the same invention. This is not found persuasive because the claimed processing units of Groups III-IV do to recite corresponding units processing the steps of Group I. Therefore, they are mutually exclusive inventions. Furthermore, applicant concedes on p. 8 of the Remarks that claims 39 and 40 are drawn to variants of the subject matter of Group I. Applicant also asserts there is no burden in examining all Groups and species. However, the mere fact that the claims are drawn to 4 Groups and 10 species are self-evident that there is a serious burden on examination. Claims 2, 5-16, 18, 21-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected embodiment, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/22/26. It is noted that applicant’s representative orally elected claims 5, 10-15, and 25-30 during a phone interview on 8/10/26. However, these claims are directed to different embodiments. For example, claim 5 is directed to another embodiment as disclosed in [0038]. Similarly, Claim 11, for example, is directed to another embodiment as disclosed in [0051]-[0052]. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i). Drawings The drawings are objected to because all diagrams and features in Figures 2-9 are required to be distinctly labeled to indicate contents or function with legends (37 C.F.R. 1.83(a), 1.84(o)) since they are necessary for understanding of the drawing. Correction is required. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of inclusion of legal phraseology such as “disclosed”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). 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. Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bergeron et al (Additional box in ISOBMFF for selective encryption). Bergeron et al, in Figs. 2-3, discloses a selective encryption process using the same method as specified in claims 1, 3, 4, 17, 19, and 20 of the present invention, comprising detecting a region of interest (ROI) from content of an image (e.g. Fig. 2) to be coded, generating an obfuscated copy (e.g. spatial ciphering) of content of the ROI; partitioning the image into a plurality of spatial sub-units (e.g. Fig. 3, Frame with 2 slice groups); coding sub-unit(s) (e.g. Slice_group0) that are outside the ROI; coding sub-unit(s) (e.g. Slice_group1) corresponding to the ROI; processing the coded sub-unit(s) corresponding to the ROI by an access control technique (e.g. HEVC); coding the obfuscated copy of content of the ROI (e.g. Sec. 4, selective encryption); and compiling a file ISOBMFF from the encrypted access-controlled sub-unit(s) corresponding to the ROI, the coded sub-units that are outside the ROI, and the coded obfuscated copy of content of the ROI (e.g. Sec. 4). Regarding claims 3 and 19, Bergeron discloses the file conforms to a HEIF file syntax (e.g. HEVC). Regarding claims 4 and 20, Bergeron discloses the coded sub-unit(s) corresponding to the ROI and the coded obfuscated copy of content of the ROI are represented in an alternative group (e.g. Sec. 5) of the HEIF file syntax (e.g. HEVC syntax). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 20250287019 discloses Region Of Interest Encryption And Processing For Media Items 20250028861 discloses EFFICIENT VIDEO ENCRYPTION METHOD AND APPARATUS Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7334. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11 - 7. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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. /Y LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 22, 2025
Application Filed
Dec 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 13, 2026
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 05, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 10, 2026
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 31, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12748980
LEARNING DEVICE, LEARNING METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 10m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12727961
METHOD FOR OPERATING A MICROSURGICAL VISUALIZATION SYSTEM, AND MICROSURGICAL VISUALIZATION SYSTEM
2y 9m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12732624
SCALABLE SYSTEMS FOR CONTROLLING COLOR MANAGEMENT COMPRISING VARYING LEVELS OF METADATA
1y 1m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12713058
ADAPTIVE FOVEATED ENCODER AND GLOBAL MOTION PREDICTOR
1y 3m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Patent 12707052
IMAGE ENCODING/DECODING METHOD AND DEVICE, AND RECORDING MEDIUM IN WHICH BITSTREAM IS STORED
1y 7m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
48%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+25.8%)
4y 4m (~2y 7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 423 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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