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 .
Detailed Action
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the correspondence on 06/17/2026. Applicant’s argument, filed on 06/17/2026 has been entered and carefully considered. Claims 1-5 are pending.
Double Patenting rejection against US patent 12,206,847 B2 is retained based on the terminal arguments submitted on 06/17/2026.
The 35 USC § 101 rejection for is withdrawn based on the claim amendments submitted on 06/17/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, rejection is withdrawn based on the arguments/claim amendments submitted on 06/17/2026.
The application filed on 02/27/2025 is a CON of 18/499,152 filed on 10/31/2023 (PAT 12335626), which is a CON of 18/314,965 filed on 05/10/2023 (PAT 11902668), which is a CON of 17/579,225 01/19/2022 (PAT 11696035), which is a CON of 17/027,154 09/21/2020 (PAT 11483476), which is a CON of 16/372,287 04/01/2019 ABN, filed on CON of PCT/KR2017/011138 10/10/2017. Claimed foreign priority to KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2016-0127887 10/04/2016, KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2016-0129386 10/06/2016, and KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2017-0090616 07/17/2017. The certified copy of priority has been filed on 03/14/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the 06/17/2026 Remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because of the following:
Regarding claims, on page 5-7 argues “’847 is strictly directed to an in-loop filtering”, “first flag, a second flag, and a third flag ….. do not rely on signaling … flags”, “ …padding…”. While the applicant’s argument points are understood, the examiner respectfully disagrees it is because ‘847 in view of Suzumura teaches (MPEP 804, "The public should ….. be able to act on the assumption that upon the expiration of the patent it will be free to use not only the invention claimed in the patent but also modifications or variants which would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, taking into account the skill in the art and prior art other than the invention claimed in the issued patent", ‘847 patent is narrower than the scope of the current claims, so, “….an in-loop filtering …” and “…first flag …. do not rely on signaling …” supports the double patenting rejection, also, the scope of the claim has limitations, e.g., “obtaining image processing information from the bitstream”; Suzumura discusses about padding, Fig. 6, [0086], so, it is obvious to the ordinary skill in the art that the scope of the current claim is taught by ‘847 in view of Suzumura, again, Li et al., US 20190141318 A1, [0183], [0377], Table-1, Kanou et al., US 20130022109 A1, [0064], padding after filtering).
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MOHAMMAD J RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
/Mohammad J Rahman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights