Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 19/273,932

METHOD FOR ENCODING AND DECODING IMAGES ACCORDING TO DISTINCT ZONES, ENCODING AND DECODING DEVICE, AND CORRESPONDING COMPUTER PROGRAMS

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Jul 18, 2025
Examiner
HANCE, ROBERT J
Art Unit
3992
Tech Center
3900
Assignee
Orange
OA Round
2 (Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
495 granted / 747 resolved
+6.3% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
779
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.3%
-32.7% vs TC avg
§103
48.1%
+8.1% vs TC avg
§102
17.2%
-22.8% vs TC avg
§112
16.9%
-23.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 747 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Reissue Applications This application seeks to reissue US Patent No. 11,743,463 (“the ‘463 patent”). In a preliminary amendment, claims 1, 4-6, and 9-10 have been amended. Claims 1-10 are pending. This is a broadening reissue application. For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions. For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions. Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 11,743,463 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04. Supplemental Preliminary Amendment Applicant’s supplemental preliminary amendment that was filed on 11/11/2025 is not entered. “[E]ntry of a preliminary amendment may be disapproved if the preliminary amendment unduly interferes with the preparation of the first Office action.” MPEP 714.01(e) IV. As of the filing of this preliminary amendment, more than 3 months had passed from the filing of the application, and work on the instant Office action had been completed. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hannuksela, US 20190082184. Claim 1: Hannuksela discloses a coding method comprising: coding a current image split up into blocks (¶83), said current image containing at least two distinct first and second zones (note: in light of the specification, “at least two distinct first and second zones” is understood to require one first zone and one second zone. See the ‘463 patent Fig. 3B, as well as the 07/18/2025 Declaration p. 2) of blocks which do not overlap and are defined previously to the coding of any block of said current image (Frame packing of stereoscopic images places non-overlapping left- and right-eye images into a single frame. ¶197. This is equivalent to the claimed first and second “zones” when understood in light of the specification. See e.g. ‘463 patent at 7:38-55. The frame-packed image defines the zones prior to coding. ¶198.), wherein a block of the first zone is located to the right of a block of the second zone (A first zone, frame #N+1, is to the right of a second zone, frame #N. See Fig. 6a), and wherein said coding comprises the following acts performed by a coding device: coding the block of said first zone, by: predicting the block of said first zone by using the block of the second zone that has been previously coded and then decoded (Using intra block copy (IBC), a block of the first zone (that is, the second constituent frame) is predicted based on a block of a second zone (that is, the first constituent frame). ¶234. The block of the second zone that is used for IBC is previously coded and subsequently decoded, as only previously decoded samples are available for IBC prediction. ¶85. See also Fig. 4), and coding an item of information which indicates if a mode of prediction Intra Block Copy has been used or not to predict the block of said first zone (The encoder indicates (thus codes an item of information: see Fig. 4: 330) availability of IBC for blocks of the first zone. ¶234. This is an indication of whether IBC has been used or not to predict the block. The encoded bitstream also includes an “indication on the prediction mode used in encoding the current block” (¶269), from which it would be understood by the POSITA that the bitstream includes a direct identification that IBC is used to encode the block. See e.g. ¶87.); decoding the coded block of the first zone; and storing data of the decoded block of the first zone as a function of the item of information that has been coded (Encoded blocks are subsequently decoded by the inverse method by which they were encoded, and stored in frame memory for subsequent reference. See Fig. 4.). Claim 2: Hannuksela discloses coding at least one item of location information in respect of the previously coded and then decoded block (Reference blocks at a variety of locations in the first constituent frame are available for IBC prediction of the block second constituent frame. ¶234. The POSITA would appreciate that for the IBC-coded block to be properly decoded, and for the disclosed embodiment to function properly, a location of the reference block would need to be coded by the encoder. Therefore, location information that corresponds to the IBC-predicted (previously coded then decoded) block is implicitly coded by the encoder.). Claim 4: Hannuksela discloses a coding device comprising: a processing circuit (¶¶68-71) which is designed to perform the method of claim 1. See rejection of claim 1. Claim 5: Hannuksela discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which is recorded a computer program comprising program code instructions which when executed by a processor of a coding device configure the coding device (¶71) to perform the method of claim 1. See rejection of claim 1. Claim 6: Hannuksela discloses a method comprising: decoding a data signal (¶266; Fig. 8) representative of a current image split up into blocks (¶83) which has been coded, said at least one current image containing at least two distinct first and second zones of blocks which do not overlap and are defined previously to the decoding of any coded block of said data signal (Frame packing of stereoscopic images places non-overlapping left- and right-eye images into a single frame. ¶197. This is equivalent to the claimed first and second “zones” when understood in light of the specification. See e.g. ‘463 patent at 7:38-55. The frame-packed image defines the left- and right-eye zones prior to coding. ¶198.), wherein a block of the first zone is located to the right of a block of the second zone (A first zone, frame #N+1, is to the right of a second zone, frame #N. See Fig. 6a), said decoding comprising the following acts performed by a decoding device: decoding the block of said first zone, by: reading in the data signal an item of information which indicates if a mode of prediction Intra Block Copy is to be used or not to predict the block of the first zone, the block of the first zone being intended to be predicted by using the block of the second zone that has been previously decoded (The bitstream includes information which indicates (that is, has a coded item of information: see Fig. 4: 330) availability of IBC for blocks of the first zone. ¶234. This is an indication of whether IBC is to be used to predict the block. It would also be understood by the POSITA that the bitstream includes a direct identification that IBC was used to encode the block. See e.g. ¶87.), and decoding the block of the first zone by using a prediction indicated by said read item of information (Encoded blocks are decoded by the IBC method indicated in the bitstream. ¶¶ 234 and 269); and storing data of the decoded block of the first zone as a function of the item of information that has been read (Fig. 8 and ¶266). Claim 7: Hannuksela discloses reading, in the data signal, of at least one item of location information in respect of the previously coded and then decoded block (Reference blocks at a variety of locations in the first constituent frame are available for IBC prediction of the block second constituent frame. ¶234. The POSITA would appreciate that for the IBC-coded block to be properly decoded, and for the disclosed embodiment to function properly, a location of the reference block would need to be coded by the encoder. Therefore, location information that corresponds to the IBC-predicted (previously coded then decoded) block is implicitly coded by the encoder.). Claim 9: Hannuksela discloses a decoding device comprising: a processing circuit (Fig. 8 and ¶¶68-71) which is designed to perform the method of claim 6. See rejection of claim 6. Claim 10: Hannuksela discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which is recorded a computer program comprising program code instructions which when executed by a processor of a decoding device (Fig. 8 and ¶¶68-71) configure the decoding device to perform the method of claim 6. See rejection of claim 6. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannuksela in view of Wang, US 20140049603. Claim 3: Hannuksela is silent regarding coding an item of identification information in respect of each of the at least two zones of the current image. However, Wang discloses coding an item of identification information in respect of each of at least two zones of a current image (The presence, type, and format of frame-packed stereoscopic images are identified by an encoder in extension header information. ¶90. This header information is coded with the image information. Fig. 3. Therefore identification information in respect to the two zones, or frame-packed images, is encoded.). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hannuksela with the teachings in Wang, the rationale being to provide increased flexibility in the encoder’s decision of how to frame-pack the stereoscopic images, and to ensure that the frame-packed images are properly processed and displayed by the decoding side. Claim 8: Hannuksela-Wang discloses that each of the zones of the current image is identified by reading a corresponding item of identification information read in the data signal (Wang ¶90 and Fig. 3.). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J HANCE whose telephone number is (571)270-5319. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00am-7:00pm ET. 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, Michael Fuelling can be reached at (571) 270-1367. 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. /ROBERT J HANCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 Conferees: /CHARLES R CRAVER/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992 /M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 18, 2025
Application Filed
Jul 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 20, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 24, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 09, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent RE50857
CONCEPT FOR COMBINING MULTIPLE PARAMETRICALLY CODED AUDIO SOURCES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent RE50818
CONCEPT FOR COMBINING MULTIPLE PARAMETRICALLY CODED AUDIO SOURCES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12556999
CELL SELECTION METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent RE50772
CONCEPT FOR COMBINING MULTIPLE PARAMETRICALLY CODED AUDIO SOURCES
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent RE50746
CONCEPT FOR COMBINING MULTIPLE PARAMETRICALLY CODED AUDIO SOURCES
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+21.3%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 747 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