Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 25, 2026
Application No. 19/304,778

IMAGE ENCODING METHOD AND IMAGE DECODING METHOD

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Aug 20, 2025
Priority
Apr 08, 2010 — continuation of PCTJP2010056400 +6 more
Examiner
TRAN, LOI H
Art Unit
2484
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 7m
Est. Remaining
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allowance Rate
409 granted / 629 resolved
+7.0% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
663
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.1%
-31.9% vs TC avg
§103
66.1%
+26.1% vs TC avg
§102
9.2%
-30.8% vs TC avg
§112
14.1%
-25.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 629 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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. Double Patenting 3. Claims 1-3 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-4 of Patent No. 12,132,927, in view of Hallapuro et al. (US Publication 2009/0304084). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 3-4 of Patent No. 12,132,927 contain every element of claims 1-3 of the instant application except for the limitations “transmit data including selection information” as recited in claim 1, “encode mode information” as recited in claims 2 and 3. Hallapuro discloses (see fig’s 1, 5a and 5b, para’s 0036-0046 and 0050-0051), FIG. 1 illustrates a transmission apparatus for sending encoded signal from a source to a renderer through a network gateway. FIG. 3 is a block diagram of a representative video decoder. As shown in FIG. 3, entropy decoding 300 is followed by both prediction error decoding 302 and pixel prediction 304. In prediction error decoding 302, an inverse transform 306 and inverse quantization 308 is performed, resulting in a reconstructed prediction error signal 312. For pixel prediction 304, either intra-prediction or inter-prediction occurs at 314 to create a predicted representation of an image block 316. The predicted representation of the image block 316 is used in conjunction with the reconstructed prediction error signal 312 to create a preliminary reconstructed image 318, which in turn can be used both for prediction 314. Once all of the image blocks have been processed, the preliminary reconstructed image 318 is passed for filtering 320. The filtered image can also be stored in reference frame memory 324, making it usable for prediction 314 as well. Selecting a list of vectors as predictors “available blocks” from among a plurality of candidate blocks, the plurality of candidate blocks includes a block adjacent to a top of the current “target” block of an intra-coding; encoding the current “target” block using motion information of the selected predictor “selected block”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate Hallapuro’s features into the invention of Patent #12,132,927 because doing so can reduce compression coding and save processing resources. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate Hallapuro’s features into the invention of Patent #12,132,927 because doing so can reduce compression coding and save processing resources. 4. Claims 1-3 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-4 of Patent No. 12,425,629, in view of Hallapuro et al. (US Publication 2009/0304084). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 3-4 of Patent No. 12,425,629 contain every element of claims 1-3 of the instant application except for the limitations “transmit data including selection information” as recited in claim 1, “encode mode information” as recited in claims 2 and 3. Hallapuro discloses (see fig’s 1, 5a and 5b, para’s 0036-0046 and 0050-0051), FIG. 1 illustrates a transmission apparatus for sending encoded signal from a source to a renderer through a network gateway. FIG. 3 is a block diagram of a representative video decoder. As shown in FIG. 3, entropy decoding 300 is followed by both prediction error decoding 302 and pixel prediction 304. In prediction error decoding 302, an inverse transform 306 and inverse quantization 308 is performed, resulting in a reconstructed prediction error signal 312. For pixel prediction 304, either intra-prediction or inter-prediction occurs at 314 to create a predicted representation of an image block 316. The predicted representation of the image block 316 is used in conjunction with the reconstructed prediction error signal 312 to create a preliminary reconstructed image 318, which in turn can be used both for prediction 314. Once all of the image blocks have been processed, the preliminary reconstructed image 318 is passed for filtering 320. The filtered image can also be stored in reference frame memory 324, making it usable for prediction 314 as well. Selecting a list of vectors as predictors “available blocks” from among a plurality of candidate blocks, the plurality of candidate blocks includes a block adjacent to a top of the current “target” block of an intra-coding; encoding the current “target” block using motion information of the selected predictor “selected block”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate Hallapuro’s features into the invention of Patent #12,425,629 because doing so can reduce compression coding and save processing resources. Claims 1-3 of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. 5. The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Rusert et al., US Publication 2011/0194609 Lee et al., US Publication 2010/0080296 Conclusion 6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOI H TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5645. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM PST FIRST FRIDAY OF BIWEEK OFF. 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, THAI TRAN can be reached on 571-272-7382. 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. /LOI H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 20, 2025
Application Filed
Jul 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12764415
IMAGING DEVICE, IMAGING INSTRUCTION METHOD, AND IMAGING INSTRUCTION PROGRAM
1y 11m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12755902
VIDEO SURVEILLANCE PLAYBACK SYSTEM WITH MULTI-TIERED STORAGE
3y 9m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12744974
METHODS AND DEVICES FOR GENERATING CUSTOMIZED VIDEO SEGMENT BASED ON CONTENT FEATURES
2y 4m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12732679
CAMERA MODULE AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 6m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12725636
VIDEO MERGING METHOD, DEVICE, EQUIPMENT AND MEDIUM
2y 6m to grant Granted Sep 01, 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
65%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+23.5%)
2y 9m (~1y 7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 629 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