DETAILED ACTION
This Office action for U.S. Patent Application No. 19/326,143 is responsive to communications filed 14 September 2026, in reply to the Non-Final Rejection of 20 July 2026.
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are pending.
In the previous Office action, claims 1, 6, and 7 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0170612 A1 (“Zhou”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0007648 A1 (“Chen”).
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 19 August 2026 fails to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically, Applicant has not even identified the alleged counterpart foreign application or applications that caused each item to be contained in the IDS.
The information disclosure statement filed on 25 June 2026 fails to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document, each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Specifically, there is no copy of the “Chinese Office Action issued on March 28, 2026 in counterpart Chinese Application No. 202511137130.4”1.
The information disclosure statement filed 19 March 2026 fails to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document, each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Specifically, there is no copy of any of the foreign Office actions2.
The examiner does not have the investigative authority to determine whether the repeated absence of copies of foreign communications from what Applicant certifies under 37 C.F.R. § 1.97(e)(1) to be counterpart applications to the application being examined (and therefore information objectively material to patentability of the application being examined as disclosing the presence, identity, and relevance of, or alternatively, the absence of, relevant prior art), or in some cases, even identifications of the counterpart applications, constitutes a violation of the Duty of Disclosure. M.P.E.P. § 2010. Applicant is encouraged to prevent government waste and delay by limiting Information Disclosure Statements based on 37 C.F.R. § 1.97(e)(1) to foreign office actions that are true counterparts to the application being examined, meaning they claim substantially the same material as the application being examined, but file the foreign office actions directly in the original IDS having the 37 C.F.R. § 1.97(e)(1) certification, should Applicant deem the foreign applications to be counterpart to the application being examined.
Requirement for Information – 37 C.F.R. § 1.105
The following is a quotation of the appropriate sections of 37 C.F.R. § 1.105(a)(1) that form the basis for the Requirement for Information under this section made in this Office action:
In the course of examining or treating a matter in a pending or abandoned application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 or 371 (including a reissue application), in a patent, or in a reexamination proceeding, the examiner or other Office employee may require the submission, from individuals identified under § 1.56(c), or any assignee, of such information as may be reasonably necessary to properly examine or treat the matter, for example:
(ii) Search: Whether a search of the prior art was made, and if so, what was searched.
(viii) Technical information known to applicant. Technical information known to application concerning the related art, the disclosure, the claimed subject matter, other factual information pertinent to patentability, or concerning the accuracy of the examiner’s stated interpretation of such items.
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application.
The information is required to enter in the record the documents material to patentability suggested by the applicant as relevant to this examination in the Certification Statement filed with the 19 August 2026 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS).
In response to this requirement, please provide a copy of each “communication from a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application not more than three months prior to the filing of the” 19 August 2026 IDS that cited any item of information disclosed in the IDS.
In responding to those requirements that require copies of documents, where the document is a bound text or a single article over 50 pages, the requirement may be met by providing copies of those pages that provide the particular subject matter indicated in the requirement, or where such subject matter is not indicated, the subject matter found in applicant’s disclosure.
The fee and certification requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97 are waived for those documents submitted in reply to this requirement. The other requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.98 are not waived. This waiver extends only to those documents within the scope of this requirement under 37 C.F.R. § 1.105 that are included in the applicant’s first complete communication responding to this requirement. Any supplemental replies subsequent to the first communication responding to this requirement and any information disclosures beyond the scope of this requirement under 37 C.F.R. § 1.105 are subject to the fee and certification requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97.
The applicant is reminded that the reply to this requirement must be made with candor and good faith under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56. Where the applicant does not have or cannot readily obtain an item of required information, a statement that the item is unknown or cannot be readily obtained may be accepted as a complete reply to the requirement for that item.
This requirement is an attachment of the enclosed Office action. A complete reply to the enclosed Office action must include a complete reply to this requirement. The time period for reply to this requirement coincides with the time period for reply to the enclosed Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically with respect to the allegation that Chen does not teach parsing bitstream parameters, much less the claimed single piece of integrated information (Rem. 5), the Zhou control code that indicates how to perform the “rotation and/or mirror operation” (¶ 0024) is sufficient to teach the claimed single piece of integrated information.
Specifically with respect to the arguments that Chen does not teach rotation followed by flipping, Chen is not limited to the Figure 5 engine showing a choice to “pick an engine to process” (¶ 0030), but also includes paragraph 0032, stating that “Rotating of step 660 can also include flipping the scaled block”. Paragraph 0032 does not present flipping as an alternative to rotating as in the Figure 5 embodiment, but can reasonably be interpreted as including flipping as a component of the step 660 rotating. Also, the examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that mathematical equivalence is not the same as structural equivalence in this case. The claimed eight candidate modes form the complete dihedral group D4, as shown in the table below.
Visualization
Claimed candidate mode as a (clockwise ¶ 0307) rotation followed by horizontal flip
b
0-degree rotation
ᓂ
90-degree rotation
q
180-degree rotation
ᓄ
270-degree rotation
d
horizontal flipping
ᓀ
90-degree rotation and then horizontal flipping
p
180-degree rotation and then horizontal flipping
؎
270-degree rotation and then horizontal flipping
The specification at Figure 10 also shows a visualization. More generally, claim 1 restricts the generating set to rotation followed by horizontal flipping. With rotation considered clockwise (¶ 0307), the following map results:
PNG
media_image1.png
618
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner’s position is that either of a 90 degree and 270 degree rotation, in combination with either of a horizontal and vertical flip, in any order, is sufficient to produce D4, and as such, would render claim 1 obvious in view of such a prior art disclosure. See Andrew Misseldine, Southern Utah University, Abstract Algebra I, Lecture 17: Dihedral Groups (Oct. 2020), Theorem 5.2.2. Other generating sets for D4 include a 90 degree or 270 degree rotation in combination with a diagonal flip, or as given in US 6,298,166 B1 (“Ratnakar”) at column 6; lines 1–25 and Table 3, a vertical flip in combination with a diagonal flip3. Given this, the Chen paragraph 0032 embodiment allowing for rotating at 90 degrees, 180 degrees, or 270 degrees, and “can also include flipping the scaled block” is sufficient guidance to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the claimed complete set of D4 transformations, even if the exact generating set used to implement Chen differs from the claimed generating set.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0170612 A1 (“Zhou”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0007648 A1 (“Chen”).
Zhou, directed to a video codec, teaches with respect to claim 1 a method for processing an image, the method comprising:
receiving a bitstream for the image (Fig. 3, receiving input stream NAL);
obtaining a decoded image by decoding the bitstream (id., entropy decoding 212 and inverse transform and processing 304); and
reconstructing the decoded image (id., rotation and mirror 302 in decoding pipeline);
wherein the reconstructing the decoded image comprises flipping or rotating the decoded image (Fig. 1, various rotate and mirror transforms),
wherein the reconstructing is performed based on a mode indicated by reconstruction-related information included in the bitstream (¶¶ 0024, 0029; control code for inter/intra reconstruction including rotation and mirror)
wherein the reconstructing the decoded image comprises rearranging pixels in the decoded image (¶ 0029–31, Fig. 7; changing pixel addresses), and
the reconstruction-related information comprises a single piece of integrated information (¶ 0024, 0029; control code for inter/intra reconstruction including rotation and mirror).
The claimed invention differs from Zhou in that the invention specifies performing the reconstruction using based on specific information indicating a set list of eight predefined candidate rotation and flipping modes. Zhou mentions control for rotation and mirror (e.g., ¶ 0029 and Fig. 7 illustrate an example of reconstruction “with vertical mirror control”), and Fig. 1 illustrates five of the eight candidate modes, but does not go into the claimed detail. However, Chen, directed to rotating video as part of streaming, teaches with respect to claim 1:
wherein the reconstruction-related information . . . indicat[es] one among predefined eight candidate modes . . . comprising a 0-degree rotation, a 90-degree rotation, a 180-degree rotation, a 270-degree rotation, a horizontal flipping, a 90-degree rotation and then horizontal flipping, a 180-degree rotation and then horizontal flipping, [and] a 270-degree rotation and then horizontal flipping (Fig. 5, ¶ 0030, rotate 90, 180, and 270 degrees and horizontal and vertical flip are available generators; 0032, Fig. 6A, selecting a rotation parameter that can be a 0 degree rotation or “can include flipping”, interpreted as meaning the Fig. 6 rotation may include a flip as a component of rotation, and not merely an alternative to rotation as in Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Zhou to control the flipping and rotation using generators producing to the D4 dihedral group as claimed, as taught by Chen, in order to simplify the processing by using dedicated circuits for these operations. Chen ¶ 0029.
Regarding claim 6, Zhou in view of Chen teaches a method for processing an image, the method comprising:
encoding the image into a bitstream encoding the image into a bitstream (Chen ¶ 0017, encoding image data for transmission);
wherein a decoded image for the encoded image is obtained by decoding the bitstream (Zhou fig. 3, entropy decoding 212 and inverse transform and processing 304), and
reconstructing is performed for the decoded image (id., rotation in mirror in decoding pipeline),
wherein the reconstructing is performed based on a mode indicated by reconstruction-related information included in the bitstream (¶¶ 0024, 0029; control code for controlling reconstruction including mirror and/or flip)
wherein the reconstructing comprises flipping or rotating the decoded image (¶ 0024, rotation and mirror), and
the reconstruction-related information comprises a single piece of integrated information (¶¶ 0024, 0029; control code for controlling reconstruction including mirror and/or flip) indicating one among eight candidate modes . . . comprising a 0-degree rotation, a 90-degree rotation, a 180-degree rotation, a 270-degree rotation, a horizontal flipping, a 90-degree rotation and then horizontal flipping, a 180-degree rotation and then horizontal flipping, [and] a 270-degree rotation and then horizontal flipping (Chen Fig. 5, ¶ 0030, rotate 90, 180, and 270 degrees and horizontal and vertical flip are available generators; 0032, Fig. 6A, selecting a rotation parameter that can be a 0 degree rotation or “can include flipping”, interpreted as meaning the Fig. 6 rotation may include a flip as a component of rotation, and not merely an alternative to rotation as in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Zhou in view of Chen teaches a method for transmitting a bitstream, the method comprising:
[the claim 6 method] (claim 6 rejection supra); and
transmitting the bitstream (Chen ¶ 0017, encoding image data for transmission).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2014/0192149 A1 (¶ 0083, “the non-nested SEI message is one of: . . . a display orientation SEI message that includes information that specifies flipping and/or rotation to be applied to the output pictures when the output pictures are displayed”).
US 2014/0056531 A1
US 2009/0202158 A1
US 2008/0198936 A1
US 2012/0155532 A1
US 2014/0226721 A1
WO 96/25723 A1
V. Ratnakar, B. Vasudev, & V. Ivashan, “Fast dihedral symmetry operations on digital images in the compressed domain”, Proc. of 2000 Int’l Conf. on Multimedia & Expo 221–224 (Aug. 2000)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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.
/David N Werner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
1 The Espacenet machine translation of Claim 1 of this application reads:
1. A method for decoding a 360-degree image, performed by an image decoding device, the method comprising:
Receive a bitstream encoded with the 360-degree image, the bitstream including data of an extended two-dimensional image, the extended two-dimensional image including a two-dimensional image and a predetermined extended region, and the two-dimensional image being projected from an image having a three-dimensional projection structure and including one or more surfaces;
A predicted image is generated by performing a prediction based on information about the prediction included in the bitstream; and
The extended two-dimensional image is reconstructed based on the predicted image and the residual image.
The prediction is performed by referring to at least one neighboring sample.
The presence information indicating the existence of the extended region is obtained from the bitstream, and
If the presence information indicates that the extended region exists, the size information of the extended region is obtained from the bitstream;
The projection format based on the three-dimensional projection structure is a first projection format. The size of the extended region is determined based on first width information specifying the width of the extended region on the left side of the face and second width information specifying the width of the extended region on the right side of the face. Both the first width information and the second width information are obtained from the bitstream.
Wherein, the projection format based on the three-dimensional projection structure is a second projection format, and the size of the extended region is determined based on a first width information for specifying the width of the extended region on the left side of the face, a second width information for specifying the width of the extended region on the right side of the face, a third height information for specifying the height of the extended region on the upper side of the face, and a fourth height information for specifying the height of the extended region on the lower side of the face. The first width information, the second width information, the third height information, and the fourth height information are all obtained from the bitstream, and the sample value of the extended region is determined differently according to a filling method selected from a plurality of filling methods, wherein the filling method is determined independently for each of the one or more faces.
2 The four Chinese applications are all, broadly speaking, directed to extending a two-dimensional image within a 360 degree image and do not explicitly claim rotating and flipping except to the extent such material is implicit in the ERP and CMP projection mappings. IN 202218049828 is directed to dividing image blocks into division units, blocks, and sub-blocks.
3 This also means that the examiner finds Ratnakar Table 3 discloses the claimed eight candidate modes. Applicant is cautioned of the implications of this finding in drafting the response to this Office action.
Prosecution Insights