DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Action on the Merits for U.S. Patent Application No. 19/326,143, filed 11 September 2025, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/523,855, filed 29 November 2023, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/073,225, now U.S. Patent No. 12,028,503, filed 16 October 2020, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/372,251, now abandoned, filed 1 April 2019, which is a continuation of International Application No. PCT/KR2017/011144, filed 10 October 2017, which claims foreign priority to Korean Application No. KR10-2017-0090613, filed 17 July 2017, to Korean Application No. KR10-2016-0129383, filed 6 October 2016, and to Korean Application No. KR10-2016-0127883, filed 4 October 2016.
Claims 1–7 are pending.
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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not disclose the invention presently claimed in this now third continuation of ancestor application 16/372,251. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See M.P.E.P. § 608.01(b).
Double Patenting
The obviousness-type double patenting rejection is based on a longstanding judicial interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 101 grounded in public policy 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. An 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 U.S.P.Q.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 U.S.P.Q.2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 U.S.P.Q. 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 U.S.P.Q. 761 (C.C.P.A. 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 U.S.P.Q. 619 (C.C.P.A. 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 U.S.P.Q. 644 (C.C.P.A. 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on obviousness-type double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See M.P.E.P. § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in M.P.E.P. § 2159. See M.P.E.P. § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to an obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the OTDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. A request to hold the OTDP rejection in abeyance does not meet this completeness requirement. See M.P.E.P. § 804(I)(B)(1). For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 C.F.R. § 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 C.F.R. § 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See M.P.E.P. §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1–5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–5 of copending Application No. 19/321,331 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the broader claims of this later-filed application are completely covered by the narrower claims of the earlier-filed ‘331 application, such that the claims of the present application could have been found anticipated by the claims of the ‘331 application under the one-way distinctiveness test. M.P.E.P. § 804(II)(B)(4). A breakdown of the claim limitations is as follows:
19/326,143 (present application)
19/321,331 (reference application)
1. A method for processing an image, the method comprising:
receiving a bitstream for the image;
obtaining a decoded image by decoding the bitstream; and
reconstructing the decoded image,
wherein the reconstructing comprises flipping or rotating the decoded image.
1. A method for processing an image, the method comprising:
receiving a bitstream for the image;
obtaining a decoded image by decoding the bitstream; . . . and
reconstructing the decoded image based on the mode,
wherein the mode comprises a plurality of candidate modes including flipping, rotating, and a combination of the flipping and the rotating.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein whether to reconstruct the decoded image is determined based on reconstruction-related information included in the bitstream.
1. . . . reconstruction-related information included in the bitstream . . .
2. The method of claim 1, wherein whether to reconstruct the decoded image is determined based on the reconstruction-related information.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the reconstructing the decoded image comprises rearranging pixels in the decoded image.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the reconstructing the decoded image comprises rearranging pixels in the decoded image.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the rearranging is performed based on a size of the decoded image before the rearranging and a size of the decoded image after the rearranging.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the rearranging is performed based on a size of the decoded image before the rearranging and a size of the decoded image after the rearranging.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the rearranging is performed using a ratio of the size of the decoded image before the rearranging to the size of the decoded image after the rearranging.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the rearranging is performed using a ratio of the size of the decoded image before the rearranging to the size of the decoded image after the rearranging.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0170612 A1 (“Zhou”).
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 based on the mode (id., rotation and mirror 302 in decoding pipeline);
wherein the reconstructing comprises flipping or rotating the decoded image (Fig. 1, various rotate and mirror transforms).
Regarding claim 2, Zhou teaches the method of claim 1, wherein whether to reconstruct the decoded images is determined based on the reconstruction-related information included in the bitstream (¶ 0024, control code; ¶ 0026, reconstruction with or without the transform).
Regarding claim 3, Zhou teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the reconstructing the decoded image comprises rearranging pixels in the decoded image (¶ 0029–31, Fig. 7; changing pixel addresses).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 4–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0139446 A1 (“Kuroki”).
Claims 4 and 5 are directed to performing the pixel rearrangement based on a size of the decoded image, and claims 6 and 7 are directed to encoder-side processing. Zhou does not teach these limitations.
Regarding claim 4, Kuroki teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the rearranging is performed based on a size of the decoded image before the rearranging and a size of the decoded image after the rearranging (¶¶ 0097, 0136; rotating or mirroring image for display in specific display area, e.g., thumbnail). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use the Zhou process to rotate or mirror images for specific display areas, in order to allow for operations such as automatic rotation of a mobile display for portrait or landscape mode (¶ 0041).
Regarding claim 5, Kuroki teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the rearranging is performed using a ratio of the size of the decoded image before the rearranging to the size of the decoded image after the rearranging (¶¶ 0132–39, rotated thumbnail application rotates and reduces images to 1/8 size).
Regarding claim 6, Zhou in view of Kuroki teaches a method for processing an image, the method comprising:
encoding the image into a bitstream (Kuroki Fig. 13, image compressor 120b);
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 and mirror 302 in decoding pipeline),
wherein the reconstructing comprises flipping or rotating the decoded image (id., Fig. 1; various rotate and mirror transforms).
Regarding claim 7, Zhou in view of Kuroki teaches a method for transmitting a bitstream, the method comprising:
encoding the image into a bitstream (Kuroki Fig. 13, image compressor 120b); and
transmitting the bitstream (Kuroki ¶ 0007, mobile phone well known to transmit images captured by onboard digital camera),
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 and mirror 302 in decoding pipeline),
wherein the reconstructing comprises flipping or rotating the decoded image (id., Fig. 1; various rotate and mirror transforms).
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2014/176362 A1
US 2015/0084954 A1
US 2014/0016698 A1
US 2013/0128964 A1
US 2015/0301780 A1
US 2012/0008682 A1
US 7,580,578 B1
US 2005/0243920 A1
US 2003/0214712 A1
US 2014/0226721 A1
US 2018/0041774 A1
The following prior art was found using an Artificial Intelligence assisted search using an internal AI tool that uses the classification of the application under the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system, as well as from the specification, including the claims and abstract, of the application as contextual information. The documents are ranked from most to least relevant. Where possible, English-language equivalents are given, and redundant results within the same patent families are eliminated. See “New Artificial Intelligence Functionality in PE2E Search”, 1504 OG 359 (15 November 2022), “Automated Search Pilot Program”, 90 F.R. 48,161 (8 October 2025).
US 2019/0037239 A1
US 2014/0314142 A1
US 2014/0362917 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David N Werner whose telephone number is (571)272-9662. The examiner can normally be reached M--F 7:30--4:00 Central.
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, Dave 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David N Werner whose telephone number is (571)272-9662. The examiner can normally be reached M--F 7:30--4:00 Central.
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, Dave 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.
/David N Werner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487