Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 19/314,687

METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ENCODING/DECODING IMAGE

Final Rejection §DP
Filed
Aug 29, 2025
Examiner
PHAM, NAM D
Art Unit
2487
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
B1 Institute Of Image Technology, INC.
OA Round
2 (Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 12m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allow Rate
481 granted / 530 resolved
+32.8% vs TC avg
Minimal +1% lift
Without
With
+0.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 12m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
564
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.0%
-33.0% vs TC avg
§103
32.3%
-7.7% vs TC avg
§102
28.4%
-11.6% vs TC avg
§112
4.3%
-35.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 530 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 Summary This office action for US Patent application 19/314687 is responsive to communications filed on Feb sixth, 2026. Currently, claims 1-6 are pending are presented for examination while the claim 6 was canceled. Response to Arguments On pages 4-5 in the claims filed on 02/06/2026, applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 have been considered. The applicant is arguing that the subject matter of the amended claims 1-5 is patentably distinguishable from those of claims of the co-pending applications. While applicant’s arguments have been considered and understood, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner does not see any significant difference between the subject matter of the amended claims and those of claims of the co-pending applications. Therefore, the double-patenting rejection is maintained. The claims filed on 02/06/2026 should contain claims only and the “REMARKS” should be included in the Applicant Argument/Remarks made in an Amendment. The applicant is suggested to double-check this format. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claims 1-6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-5 of copending Application No 18/775476 and claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 19/314698. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is merely in the terminology used in both sets of claims. This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented. Below is a list of limitations that perform the same function. However different terminology is used in both sets to describe the limitations. Conflicting Co-pending Application 18/775476 Instant Application-19/314687- 1.An image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the method comprising: generating a prediction block of a coding block by performing intra prediction; generating a residual block of the coding block; and reconstructing the coding block based on the prediction block and the residual block, wherein the coding block is reconstructed by adding the prediction block and the residual block, wherein the performing intra prediction comprises interpolating reference samples, wherein one among fixed filtering or adaptive filtering is selectively performed according to an intra prediction mode for the coding block for the interpolating reference samples, and wherein the fixed filtering uses one interpolation filter pre-defined in the image decoding apparatus, and the adaptive filtering selectively uses one among a plurality of interpolation filters pre-defined in the image decoding apparatus. Claims 2-5 1.An image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the method comprising: generating a prediction block of a coding block by performing intra prediction; and generating a residual block of the coding block; and reconstructing the coding block based on the prediction block and the residual block, wherein the coding block is reconstructed by adding the prediction block and the residual block, wherein the performing intra prediction comprises interpolating reference samples, and wherein the interpolating the reference samples further comprises: determining whether to perform fixed filtering or adaptive filtering based on an intra prediction mode for the coding block - wherein the fixed filtering uses one interpolation filter pre-defined in the image decoding apparatus, and the adaptive filtering selectively uses one among a plurality of interpolation filters pre-defined in the image decoding apparatus; and determining, in case the adaptive filtering is performed, one among the plurality of the interpolation filters based on the intra prediction mode for the coding block. Claims 2-5 Conflicting Co-pending Application 19/314698 Instant Application-19/314687 1. An image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the method comprising: generating a prediction block of a coding block by performing intra prediction; and reconstructing the coding block based on the prediction block, wherein the reconstructing the coding block further comprises: obtaining a quantized transform coefficient for the coding block; obtaining a transform coefficient for the coding block based on the quantized transform coefficient; and generating a residual block of the coding block based on the transform coefficient, wherein the coding block is reconstructed further based on the residual block, wherein the transform coefficient is obtained by inverse-quantizing the quantized transform coefficient, wherein the residual block is generated by inverse-transforming the transform coefficient, wherein the coding block is generated by adding the prediction block and the residual block, wherein the performing intra prediction comprises interpolating reference samples, wherein one among fixed filtering or adaptive filtering is selectively performed according to an intra prediction mode for the coding block for the interpolating reference samples, and wherein the fixed filtering uses one interpolation filter pre-defined in the image decoding apparatus, and the adaptive filtering selectively uses one among a plurality of interpolation filters pre-defined in the image decoding apparatus. Claims 2-5 1.An image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the method comprising: generating a prediction block of a coding block by performing intra prediction; and generating a residual block of the coding block; and reconstructing the coding block based on the prediction block and the residual block, wherein the coding block is reconstructed by adding the prediction block and the residual block, wherein the performing intra prediction comprises interpolating reference samples, and wherein the interpolating the reference samples further comprises: determining whether to perform fixed filtering or adaptive filtering based on an intra prediction mode for the coding block - wherein the fixed filtering uses one interpolation filter pre-defined in the image decoding apparatus, and the adaptive filtering selectively uses one among a plurality of interpolation filters pre-defined in the image decoding apparatus; and determining, in case the adaptive filtering is performed, one among the plurality of the interpolation filters based on the intra prediction mode for the coding block. Claims 2-5 Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-5 are generic to all that is recited in claims of co-pending applications. That is, claims 1-5 is/are anticipated by claims of co-pending applications. Claims 1-5 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of co-pending applications. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 1-5 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting. However, these claims would be allowable if the obvious-type double patenting is overcome. New 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications form the examiner should be directed to Nam Pham, whose can be contacted by phone at (571)270-7352. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon—Thurs. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, CZEKAJ DAVID, can be reached on (571)272-7327. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) AT 866-217-9197 (too free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /NAM D PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 29, 2025
Application Filed
Dec 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Feb 06, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 02, 2026
Final Rejection — §DP
Apr 03, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598289
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ENCODING/DECODING IMAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587644
Transforms on Non-dyadic Blocks
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581058
GEOMETRIC PARTITION MODE WITH MOTION VECTOR REFINEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581056
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ENCODING/DECODING IMAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574514
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ENCODING/DECODING IMAGE USING QUANTIZATION PARAMETER, AND RECORDING MEDIUM STORING BITSTREAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
91%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+0.6%)
1y 12m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 530 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month