DETAILED ACTION
This Office action for U.S. Patent Application No. 19/414,697 is responsive to communications filed 6 July 2026, in reply to the Non-Final Rejection of 6 April 2026 and the Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment of 4 June 2026.
Claims 1–7 are pending.
In the Non-Final Rejection, claims 1, 6, and 7 were objected to for grammar informalities. Claims 1–71 were rejected for obviousness-type double patenting against U.S. Patent Application No. 19/411,190. Claims 1–3 and 5–7 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0085917 A1 (“Hannuksela”). Claim 4 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Hannuksela.
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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 6 July 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on U.S. Patent Application No. 19/411,190 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant alleges that Hannuksela does not teach the two new limitations of “obtaining enablement information indicating whether to perform image resizing for the image from a received bitstream” and “obtaining image resizing information for the image from the bitstream based on the enablement information indicating to perform the image resizing for the image”. The examiner disagrees. Applicant attempts to distinguish the claimed enablement information from horizontal and vertical scale factors in Hannuksela ¶ 0318, which signal scaling if either of these factors are not equal to 1, and scaled region samples dimensions in ¶ 0363. However, Hannuksela ¶ 0336 further describes a scaled_ref_layer_offset_present_flag that indicates whether the scaled reference layer offset parameters are present. If there is no inter-layer prediction that requires scaling, the ratio is not calculated.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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)(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 and 5–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0085917 A1 (“Hannuksela”).
Hannuksela, directed to panoramic video, teaches with respect to claim 1 a method for processing an image, the method comprising:
obtaining enablement information indicating whether to perform image resizing for the image from a received bitstream (¶ 0336, scaled_ref_layer_offset_present_flag that indicates whether scaled prediction is used);
obtaining image resizing information for the image for the image from the bitstream based on the enablement information indicating to perform the image resizing for the image (¶ 0318, horizontal and vertical scale factor for inter-layer predictor when in use);
reconstructing the image by decoding the bitstream (¶ 0444, decoding the inter-layer predicted bitstream); and
performing the image resizing for the reconstructed image based on the image resizing information (Fig. 10, enhancement layer 1030 having larger size than upsampled base layer 1010 and base layer 1020),
wherein the image is reconstructed based on a prediction block and a residual block for a block included in the image (¶ 0312, inter-layer residual prediction as a type of inter layer prediction used),
wherein the image resizing information comprises offset factors for each directions [sic] of the reconstructed image (Fig. 10, enhancement layer 1030 being extended above, left, right, and below base layer by an offset scaling value), and
wherein the bitstream comprises information on yaw2 rotation of the image (¶¶ 0375–378, 392, Fig. 11; application of resampling to access sample location outside picture boundary of 360-degree panoramic picture wherein interlayer prediction crosses wrap-around picture seam; crossing this seam is a yaw rotation, in this context, ref_region_right_offset that shows how far to pan across the seam is “information on yaw rotation” as claimed).
Regarding claim 2, Hannuksela teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the image resizing is performed further considering scaling factors for both a lateral direction and a longitudinal direction [that] are obtained independently from each other (¶ 0363, distinct scaled reference layer offset values for each direction based on individual width and height scale factors).
Regarding claim 3, Hannuksela teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the image resizing is performed based on a resizing value [that] is obtained based on the offset factor included in the image resizing information and a decoding setting (¶ 0364, sample location based on scaling factor and location within source picture).
Regarding claim 5, Hannuksela teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the image resizing for a chroma component is performed based on the image resizing for a luma component (¶ 0318, second chroma sample array may be inferred from first luma sample array; ¶ 0327, “An inter-layer resampling process for obtaining a resampled chroma sample value may be specified identically . . . to the . . . process for a luma sample value”).
Regarding claim 6, Hannuksela teaches a method for processing an image, the method comprising:
obtaining the image (Fig. 14, obtaining block for prediction);
encoding the image into a bitstream (¶ 0311, predicted blocks applied in a scalable coder);
encoding enablement information indicating whether to perform image resizing for the image into the bitstream (¶ 0336, scaled_ref_layer_offset_present_flag that indicates whether scaled prediction is used); and
encoding image resizing information for the image into the bitstream based on the enablement information indicating to perform the image resizing for the image (¶ 0379, including inter layer resampling metadata in the encoded bitstream when in use);
wherein the image is encoded based on a prediction block and a residual block for a block included in the image (¶ 0312, inter-layer residual prediction as a type of inter layer prediction used),
wherein the image resizing information is used for performing image resizing for the image when being reconstructed (¶ 0444, decoding the inter-layer predicted bitstream),
wherein the information on image resizing comprises offset factors for each directions [sic] of the image (Fig. 10, enhancement layer 1030 being extended above, left, right, and below base layer by an offset scaling value), and
wherein the bitstream comprises information on yaw rotation of the image (¶¶ 0375–378, Fig. 11; application of resampling to access sample location outside picture boundary of 360-degree panoramic picture wherein interlayer prediction crosses wrap-around picture seam; crossing this seam is a yaw rotation).
Regarding claim 7, all other things equal to claim 6, Hannuksela teaches transmitting the bitstream (¶ 0280, server transmits the bitstream to receiver).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hannuksela.
Claim 4 recites the resizing value being equal to the offset factor multiplied by 2 according to a decoding setting. Hannuksela does not specify doubling dimensions in upsampling. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to implement Hannuksela to increase the size of a Figure 10 enhancement layer 1030 such that it its dimensions are 2[width] x 2[height] of an underlying base layer, since it has been held that an upscaling or change in size of a prior art invention is not sufficient to establish patentability. M.P.E.P. § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See M.P.E.P. § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 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 2013/0223514 A1
US 2018/0359469 A1
US 2016/0156932 A1
US 2014/0079130 A1
US 2016/0150230 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.
/David N Werner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
1 Applicant’s statements in the 6 July 2026 “REMARKS” that no claim was rejected over the prior art are incorrect. No allowable subject matter was indicated in the Non-Final Rejection.
2 The ‘147 application claims generic “rotation” of the image, which would most naturally be interpreted to one of ordinary skill in the art as roll.
Prosecution Insights