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 07/28/2026. Applicant’s argument, filed on 07/28/2026 has been entered and carefully considered. Claims 1-6 are pending.
Double Patenting rejection against US application 19/452,727 is deferred based on the arguments submitted on 07/28/2026.
The application filed on 01/05/2026 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, is a CON of 17/027,154 09/21/2020 PAT 11483476, is a CON of 16/372,287 04/01/2019 ABN. Claimed foreign priority to KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2016-0127887 10/04/2016, KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2016-0129386 10/06/2016, and, KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2017-0090616 07/17/2017. The certified copy of priority has been filed on 02/01/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the 07/24/2013 Remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because of the following:
Regarding claims on page 4-7 argues “determining regions corresponding to objects included in the filtered image, wherein the regions are determined based on information indicating the number of the regions”. While the applicant’s argument points are understood, the examiner respectfully disagrees it is because Rapaka in view of Du teaches (MPEP 2111, "reading a claim in light of the specification, to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from ‘reading limitations of the specification into a claim,’ to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the claim", MPEP 2111.01 I., The words of a claim must be given their "Plain Meaning" and MPEP 2111.01 II., It is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, Rapka, Fig. 17, [0157], [0160], teaches, reconstruction of the image and applying filters, Du, Fig. 1, discloses, extracting region based on the characteristics, threshold can define the number of regions, the current scope of the claim is taught by the prior arts, so, the rejection is maintained, also, at this scope a slice could be a region or a coding unit could be a region, it is standard to filter the image after reconstruction and the number or slice or coding unit is known.).
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-4 refer to "A method of decoding and image”, Claim 5 refers to "A method of encoding an image”, and Claim 6 refer to "A method of transmitting a bit stream”. Claims 5-6 are similarly rejected in light of rejection of claims 1-4, any obvious combination of the rejection of claims 1-4, 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapaka et al. (US 20160105682 A1), hereinafter Rapaka, in view of Du et al. (US 20180225864 A1), hereinafter Du.
Regarding claim 1, Rapaka discloses a method of decoding an image, comprising (Abstract): predicting blocks in the image to generate prediction blocks of the blocks (Fig. 17, element 302, [0157]); reconstructing the image based on the prediction blocks; filtering the reconstructed image ([0160]).
Rapaka discloses all the elements of claim 1 but Rapaka does not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section and determining regions corresponding to objects included in the filtered image, wherein the regions are determined based on information indicating a number of the regions.
However, Du from the same or similar endeavor teaches and determining regions corresponding to objects included in the filtered image, wherein the regions are determined based on information indicating a number of the regions (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rapaka to incorporate the teachings of Du to improve the efficiency of reconstruction (Du, Abstract). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Regarding claim 2, Rapaka in view of Du discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a size of the filtered image is smaller than a size of an image indicated by encoding information (It is obvious to the ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 3, Rapaka in view of Du discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the information is obtained from a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message of a bitstream (It is obvious to the ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 4, Rapaka in view of Du discloses the method of claim 1, based on a value of flag obtained from a bitstream, the information is determined depending on information included in a previous SEI message (It is obvious to the ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 5-6, See Examiner’s Note. Bendahan et al. (US 20140226789 A1), [0069].
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