DETAILED ACTION
This Office action for U.S. Patent Application No. 19/426,369, is responsive to communications filed 18 June 2026, in reply to the Non-Final Rejection of 29 May 2026.
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are pending.
In the previous Office action, claims 1–7 were rejected provisionally for statutory-type double patenting against claims 1–7 of U.S. Patent Application No. 19/426,383. Claims 1–5 were rejected provisionally for obviousness-type double patenting against claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent Application No. 19/411,194. Claims 1–3 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by U.S. patent Application Publication No. 2008/0170612 A1 (“Zhou”). Claims 4–7 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Zhou in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,580,578 B1 (“Onno”).
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 18 June 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. 19/426,369 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been considered. The statutory-type double patenting rejections of claims 1–7 against the ‘383 application are withdrawn, since as of 30 June 2026, the independent claims in the present application contain an additional limitation that the image contains a residual block corresponding to the prediction block and the independent claims in the ‘383 application contain an additional limitation specifying intra prediction. The irregularities of the claim amendments in the ‘383 application will be handled in its own prosecution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to representative claim 1 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. With respect to the arguments against Onno specifically, the independent claims as amended remove all references to the resizing limitations on which Onno was relied. With respect to the new limitations, it is respectfully submitted that, as will be shown in full below, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/007648 (“Chen”) at paragraph 0032 and figures 5 and 6A discloses the claimed candidate modes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to representative claim 1 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. With respect to the arguments against Onno specifically, the independent claims as amended remove all references to the resizing limitations on which Onno was relied. With respect to the new limitations, it is respectfully submitted that, as will be shown in full below, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/007648 (“Chen”) at paragraph 0032 and figures 5 and 6A discloses the claimed candidate modes.
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 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. 2008/007648 (“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 and inverse transform and processing 304); and
reconstructing the decoded image (id., enhanced inter/intra reconstruction),
wherein the obtaining the decoded image comprises generating a prediction block for a block included in the image (id., reconstructed frame added to the decoded current frame) and a residual block corresponding to the prediction block (id., current frame that is added to reconstructed frame),
wherein the reconstructing is performed based on a mode indicated by reconstruction-related information included in the bitstream (¶ 0024, control code).
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 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 is integrated information 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 flipping1, [and] a 270-degree rotation and then horizontal flipping (Fig. 5, ¶ 0030, rotate 90, 180, and 270 degrees and horizontal and vertical flip are specific rotation engines that can be picked; 0032, Fig. 6A, selecting a rotation parameter that can be a 0 degree rotation or include flipping).
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 parameters for specific rotation degrees and flipping directions, 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 (Chen ¶ 0017, encoding image data for transmission);
wherein the encoding the image comprises generating a prediction block for a block included in the image (Zhou Fig. 3, generated image uses compensation for decoding, and consequently are understood within the art to include prediction reference data and residual data) and a residual block corresponding to the prediction block (id., current frame that is added to reconstructed frame),
wherein a decoded image for the encoded image is obtained by decoding the bitstream2 (id., entropy decoding and inverse transform and processing 304), and reconstructing is performed for the decoded image (id., enhanced inter/intra reconstruction),
wherein the reconstructing is performed based on a mode indicated by reconstruction-related information included in the bitstream (¶ 0024, control code), and
the reconstruction-related information is integrated information 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 flipping3, [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 specific rotation engines that can be picked; 0032, Fig. 6A, selecting a rotation parameter that can be a 0 degree rotation or include flipping).
Regarding claim 7, Zhou in view of Chen teaches a method for transmitting a bitstream, the method comprising:
[the claim 6 method]; 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 2018/0041774 A1
US 2017/0295356 A1
US 2010/0104221 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 2018/0205965 A1
US 2016/0150243 A1
US 2017/0064298 A1
US 2015/0117523 A1
US 2009/0060037 A1
US 2013/0016773 A1
US 2016/0156929 A1
US 2014/0219339 A1
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 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 mailing date of this final action.
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 This is mathematically equivalent to a vertical flipping.
2 Claims 6 and 7 require joint infringement, which is a question of liability, not indefiniteness. Since it is clear which method steps are performed at the encoder side and which steps are performed at the decoder side, the claims are unambiguous and definite. M.P.E.P. § 2173.02(II).
3 This is mathematically equivalent to a vertical flipping.
Prosecution Insights