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
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the correspondence on 05/21/2026. Applicant’s argument, filed on 05/21/2026 has been entered and carefully considered. Claims 1-7, are pending.
Double Patenting rejection against US 12,581,065 B2 is retained based on the amendments submitted on 05/21/2026.
The application filed on 12/19/2025 is a CON of 18/949,072 11/15/2024, which is a CON of 18/498,597 10/31/2023 PAT 12231610, which is a CON of 18/314,965 05/10/2023 PAT 11902668, which is a CON of 17/579,225 01/19/2022 PAT 11696035, which is a CON of 17/027,154 09/21/2020 PAT 11483476, which is a CON of 16/372,287 04/01/2019 ABN.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the 05/21/2026 Remarks have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of reference being used in the current rejection.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory 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 MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 6, 7 and similar dependent claims are rejected on the ground of obvious type non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Conflicting Patent PAT US 12,581,065 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is anticipated by the Conflicting Patent and is covered by the Patent since the Patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, below is a list of limitations that perform the same function, however, different terminology may be used in both sets to describe the limitations, as follows, Claim 1 is used as an example to analyze the common subject matter:
Conflicting Patent No. US 12,581,065 B2
Instant Application:-19/427,236
1. A method of decoding an image with a decoding apparatus, comprising: receiving encoding data for a current block included in the image; determining, based on the encoding data, whether to perform type-based partitioning for the current block, the current block being partitioned into a plurality of sub-partitions when the type-based partitioning being performed for the current block; parsing syntax elements for a residual block of the current block from the encoding data; obtaining the residual block based on the syntax elements for the residual block, the residual block being obtained for each of the plurality of sub-partitions when the type-based partitioning being performed for the current block; generating a prediction block for the current block, the prediction block being generated for each of the plurality of sub-partitions when the type-based partitioning being performed for the current block; reconstructing the current block based on the residual block and the prediction block to reconstruct the image; and performing a post processing on the reconstructed image based on post processing information included in the encoding data, wherein the post processing comprises padding at least one region to the reconstructed image, wherein the padding is performed by determining at least one equation which uses a width of the image or a height of the image, determining a sample inside the reconstructed image based on the equation, and using the sample inside the reconstructed image for padding the region.
1. A method for processing an image, the method comprising: obtaining image resizing information for the image based on a received bitstream; reconstructing the image by decoding the bitstream; and performing image resizing for the reconstructed image based on the image resizing information, wherein the image is reconstructed by reconstructing a block included in the image, wherein the image resizing information comprises offset factors for each directions of the reconstructed image, and wherein the bitstream comprises information on yaw rotation of the image.
12,581,065, hereinafter ‘065, discloses all the elements of claim 1 but ‘065 does not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section obtaining information indicating whether to perform for the image from a received bitstream; from the bitstream based on the information indicating to perform for the image; and wherein the bitstream comprises information on yaw rotation of the image.
However, Hannuksela from the same or similar endeavor teaches obtaining information indicating whether to perform for the image from a received bitstream; from the bitstream based on the information indicating to perform for the image; and wherein the bitstream comprises information on yaw rotation of the image ([0035], [0041], [0057]-[0066], [0148]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘065 to incorporate the teachings of Hannuksela to process three-dimensional media (Hannuksela, Abstract). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
‘065 in view of Hannuksela discloses all the elements of claim 1 but they do not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section enablement information to perform image resizing; based on the enablement information to perform the image resizing.
However, Dyke from the same or similar endeavor teaches enablement information to perform image resizing; based on the enablement information to perform the image resizing ([0028], Fig. 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Hannuksela to incorporate the teachings of Dyke to reliably resize images (Dyke, [0006]). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
As demonstrated, the claim of US patent US 12,581,065 B2 anticipate the features of the claim of instant application 19/427,236.
A nonstatutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope or filing of a terminal disclaimer.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-5 refer to "A method for processing an image”, Claim 6 refers to "A method for processing an image”, and Claim 7 refers to " A method for transmitting a bitstream”. Claims 6-7 are similarly rejected in light of rejection of claims 1-5, any obvious combination of the rejection of claims 1-5, or the differences are obvious to the ordinary skill in the art. It is well known in the art that encoding and decoding are reverse processes of video coding method/system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20020181794 A1) in view of Hannuksela et al. (US 20100153395 A1), hereinafter Hannuksela, further in view of Dyke et al. (US 20060176376 A1), hereinafter Dyke.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a method for processing an image, the method comprising (Abstract): obtaining image resizing information for the image (Fig. 4); reconstructing the image by decoding the bitstream; and performing image resizing for the reconstructed image based on the image resizing information, wherein the image is reconstructed by reconstructing a block included in the image, wherein the image resizing information comprises offset factors for each directions of the reconstructed image ([0024]).
Wang discloses all the elements of claim 1 but Wang does not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section obtaining information indicating whether to perform for the image from a received bitstream; from the bitstream based on the information indicating to perform for the image; and wherein the bitstream comprises information on yaw rotation of the image.
However, Hannuksela from the same or similar endeavor teaches obtaining information indicating whether to perform for the image from a received bitstream; from the bitstream based on the information indicating to perform for the image; and wherein the bitstream comprises information on yaw rotation of the image ([0035], [0041], [0057]-[0066], [0148]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to incorporate the teachings of Hannuksela to process three-dimensional media (Hannuksela, Abstract). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Lee in view of Hannuksela discloses all the elements of claim 1 but they do not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section enablement information to perform image resizing; based on the enablement information to perform the image resizing.
However, Dyke from the same or similar endeavor teaches enablement information to perform image resizing; based on the enablement information to perform the image resizing ([0028], Fig. 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Hannuksela to incorporate the teachings of Dyke to reliably resize images (Dyke, [0006]). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Hannuksela further in view of Dyke discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the image resizing is performed further considering scaling factors for both a lateral direction and a longitudinal direction, and the scaling factor for the lateral direction and the scaling factor for the longitudinal direction are obtained independently from each other (Lee, [0024]).
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Hannuksela further in view of Dyke discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the image resizing is performed based on a resizing value, and the resizing value is obtained based on the offset factor included in the image resizing information and a decoding setting (Lee, [0024]).
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Hannuksela further in view of Dyke discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the resizing value is calculated as equal to the offset factor multiplied by 2 according to a decoding setting (Lee, [0024]).
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Hannuksela further in view of Dyke discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the image resizing for a chroma component is performed based on the image resizing for a luma component (Lee, [0039]).
Regarding claim 6-7, See Examiner’s Note.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 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 MOHAMMAD J RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, David 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.
/Mohammad J Rahman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights