Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 16, 2026
Application No. 19/045,242

IMAGE DATA ENCODING/DECODING METHOD AND APPARATUS

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Feb 04, 2025
Priority
Oct 04, 2016 — RE 10-2016-0127883 +6 more
Examiner
WILLIAMS, JEFFERY A
Art Unit
2488
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
B1 Institute of Image Technology Inc.
OA Round
4 (Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
1y 0m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allowance Rate
778 granted / 930 resolved
+25.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
998
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.4%
-33.6% vs TC avg
§103
49.2%
+9.2% vs TC avg
§102
18.3%
-21.7% vs TC avg
§112
20.7%
-19.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 930 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) 1-3 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 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 1-3 recite the limitation “wherein the first division information includes a single piece of information, the single piece of information plus 1 representing a number of the division units belonging to the current image, information on positions of the division units, and information on a size of the division units”. The applicant’s originally filed specification fails to disclose this limitation. The examiner notes, in the applicant’s arguments filed 5/1/3026, the applicant cites [0429] as teaching this limitation. However, [0429] only recites the syntax num_partitions plus 1 is equal to the number of partitioning units while [0430] recites four other syntaxes (part_top, part_left, part_height and part_width) for signaling partition locations and sizes. Thus, the applicant’s specification teaches five syntax elements are needed for signaling a number of the division units belonging to the current image, information on positions of the division units, and information on a size of the division units. Further, in claim 1, the limitation “wherein the information on a size of the division units includes a first syntax element… and a second syntax element” teaches there are two syntaxes needed for signaling a size of the partition units. 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 1-3 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. Claims 1-3 recite the limitation “wherein the first division information includes a single piece of information, the single piece of information plus 1 representing on a number of the division units belonging to the current image, information on positions of the division units, and information on a size of the division units”. However, claims 1-3 also recite “wherein the information on a size of the division units includes a first syntax element indicating a width of each of the division units and a second syntax element indicating a height of each of the division units (i.e. two syntax elements are needed to signal a size of a partition). Therefore, the claims are indefinite. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed 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 the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action. 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

Show 2 earlier events
Jun 30, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 16, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Sep 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 16, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 26, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
May 13, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 20, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12701318
Methods and Electronic Devices for Enabling a Video Recording Mode of Operation as a Function of Device Geometry and Support Condition
2y 2m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12689771
IMAGE ENCODING METHOD AND IMAGE DECODING METHOD
3y 6m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12671917
SOLID-STATE IMAGING ELEMENT, METHOD FOR CONTROLLING SOLID-STATE IMAGING ELEMENT, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12671796
IMAGE DATA ENCODING/DECODING METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 1m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12666078
ENCODER, DECODER, ENCODING METHOD, AND DECODING METHOD
1y 11m to grant Granted Jun 23, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+9.1%)
2y 7m (~1y 0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 930 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