Office Action Predictor
Application No. 17/678,608

ENCODER, DECODER, AND MEDIUM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 23, 2022
Examiner
NGUYEN, KATHLEEN V
Art Unit
2486
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Panasonic Intellectual Property Corporation Of America
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

66%
Career Allow Rate
188 granted / 287 resolved
Without
With
+26.0%
Interview Lift
avg trend
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
21 pending
308
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.6%
-37.4% vs TC avg
§103
59.3%
+19.3% vs TC avg
§102
19.7%
-20.3% vs TC avg
§112
16.7%
-23.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection on 11/19/2025. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's amendment submission filed on 10/22/2025 has been entered. This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 10/22/2025. In the instant Amendment, claims 2-4, 6-8 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 5 and 9 have been examined and 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 . Response to Amendment/ Argument Applicant's arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 5 and 9, filed on 10/22/2025, have been considered but are not persuasive. The reference Bross and Hannuksela disclose all the limitations as cited in independent claims 1, 5 and 9. See the following rejections. Regarding claims 1, 5 and 9, Applicant argues that Bross and hannuksela do not disclose the limitation when a process of extracting a sub-bitstream is performed, the flags for each of the plurality of layers are set such that at least one flag among the flags takes a predetermined value as cited in amended claims 1, 5 and 9. However, Bross Page 87, Section 7.4.3.2 discloses in bitstream, vps_ouput_layers_mode equal to 2, i.e. mode index has a first value, specifies that layers that are output are the layers with vps_output_layer_flag[i] equal to 1. So at least one layer can be output layer in the mode and at least one flag among the flags vps_output_layer_flag[i] take a predetermine value which is 1 of 0, since the claims just cite the flag takes a predetermined value. Hannuksela [0507]-[0508] discloses sub-bitstream extraction process wherein sub-bitstream containing layers included in an output layer set hence at least one layer of sub-bitstream is output layer. Hannuksela [0462] discloses OutputLayerFlag[i][j] for output layer set with index i and for layer j indicates whether the layer is an output layer. Hence, the sub-bitstream extraction process wherein sub-bitstream containing layers included in an output layer set and at least one flag among the flags takes a predetermine value to indicate the layer is output layer or not. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method and system, as disclosed by Bross, and further incorporate having at least one layer of a sub-bitstream is the output layer, the sub-bitstream being generated by extracting a subset of layers from the plurality of layers, as taught by Hannuksela, for improvement of scalable and Multiview video coding (Hannuksela [0108]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1, 5 and 9 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bross et al. (Versatile Video Coding (Draft 6)) hereinafter Bross, in view of Hannuksela (U.S. 2015/0103927). Regarding claim 1, Bross discloses an encoder comprising: memory; and circuitry coupled to the memory (Bross Page 84, Section 7.4.2.3, Page 90, last para.: encoder and memory) and configured to: generate an encoded bitstream that includes a multi-layer structure and store, in the encoded bitstream, a syntax element with a mode index, wherein when the mode index has a first value, the syntax element includes flags for each of a plurality of layers, and the flags for each of the plurality of layers are set such that at least one flag among the flags takes a predetermined value (Bross Page 87, Section 7.4.3.2: in bitstream, vps_ouput_layers_mode equal to 2, i.e. mode index has a first value, specifies that layers that are output are the layers with vps_output_layer_flag[i] equal to 1. So at least one layer can be output layer and at least one flag among the flags vps_output_layer_flag[i] take a predetermine value which is 1 of 0). Bross does not explicitly disclose when a process of extracting a sub-bitstream is performed, the flags for each of the plurality of layers are set such that at least one flag among the flags takes a predetermined value, the sub-bitstream being generated by extracting a subset of layers from the plurality of layers. However, Hannuksela discloses when a process of extracting a sub-bitstream is performed, the flags for each of the plurality of layers are set such that at least one flag among the flags takes a predetermined value, the sub-bitstream being generated by extracting a subset of layers from the plurality of layers (Hannuksela [0462]: OutputLayerFlag[i][j] for output layer set with index i and for layer j indicates whether the layer is an output layer; [0507]-[0508]: sub-bitstream extraction process wherein sub-bitstream containing layers included in an output layer set, so at least one layer of sub-bitstream is output layer. Hence, at least one flag among the flags indicating output layer takes a predetermined value to indicate the layer is output layer or not). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method and system, as disclosed by Bross, and further incorporate having when a process of extracting a sub-bitstream is performed, the flags for each of the plurality of layers are set such that at least one flag among the flags takes a predetermined value, as taught by Hannuksela, for improvement of scalable and Multiview video coding (Hannuksela [0108]). Regarding claim 5, Bross discloses a decoder comprising: memory; and circuitry coupled to the memory (Bross Page 90, last para.: decoder and memory) and configured to: check a syntax element stored in an encoded bitstream that includes a multi-layer structure; when the syntax element is stored in the encoded bitstream with a mode index having a first value and the syntax element includes flag for each of a plurality of layers, decode the encoded bitstream in accordance with the flags, wherein the flags for each of the plurality of layers are set such that at least one flag among the flags takes a predetermined value (Bross Page 87, Section 7.4.3.2: in bitstream, vps_ouput_layers_mode equal to 2, i.e. mode index has a first value, specifies that layers that are output are the layers with vps_output_layer_flag[i] equal to 1. So at least one layer can be output layer and at least one flag among the flags vps_output_layer_flag[i] take a predetermine value which is 1 of 0). Bross does not explicitly disclose when a process of extracting a sub-bitstream is performed, the flags for each of the plurality of layers are set such that at least one flag among the flags takes a predetermined value, the sub-bitstream being generated by extracting a subset of layers from the plurality of layers. However, Hannuksela discloses when a process of extracting a sub-bitstream is performed, the flags for each of the plurality of layers are set such that at least one flag among the flags takes a predetermined value, the sub-bitstream being generated by extracting a subset of layers from the plurality of layers (Hannuksela [0462]: OutputLayerFlag[i][j] for output layer set with index i and for layer j indicates whether the layer is an output layer; [0507]-[0508]: sub-bitstream extraction process wherein sub-bitstream containing layers included in an output layer set, so at least one layer of sub-bitstream is output layer. Hence, at least one flag among the flags indicating output layer takes a predetermined value to indicate the layer is output layer or not). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method and system, as disclosed by Bross, and further incorporate having when a process of extracting a sub-bitstream is performed, the flags for each of the plurality of layers are set such that at least one flag among the flags takes a predetermined value, the sub-bitstream being generated by extracting a subset of layers from the plurality of layers, as taught by Hannuksela, for improvement of scalable and Multiview video coding (Hannuksela [0108]). [0010]). Regarding claim 9, Bross discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing an encoded bitstream including a multi-layer structure (Bross Page 84, Section 7.4.2.3, Page 90, last para.: encoder and memory), wherein the encoded bitstream stores a syntax with a mode index having a first value, the syntax element including flags for each of a plurality of layers, and the flags for each of the plurality of layers are set such that at least one flag among the flags takes a predetermined value (Bross Page 87, Section 7.4.3.2: in bitstream, vps_ouput_layers_mode equal to 2, i.e. mode index has a first value, specifies that layers that are output are the layers with vps_output_layer_flag[i] equal to 1. So at least one layer can be output layer and at least one flag among the flags vps_output_layer_flag[i] take a predetermine value which is 1 of 0). Bross does not explicitly disclose when a process of extracting a sub-bitstream is performed, the flags for each of the plurality of layers are set such that at least one flag among the flags takes a predetermined value, the sub-bitstream being generated by extracting a subset of layers from the plurality of layers. However, Hannuksela discloses when a process of extracting a sub-bitstream is performed, the flags for each of the plurality of layers are set such that at least one flag among the flags takes a predetermined value, the sub-bitstream being generated by extracting a subset of layers from the plurality of layers (Hannuksela [0462]: OutputLayerFlag[i][j] for output layer set with index i and for layer j indicates whether the layer is an output layer; [0507]-[0508]: sub-bitstream extraction process wherein sub-bitstream containing layers included in an output layer set, so at least one layer of sub-bitstream is output layer. Hence, at least one flag among the flags indicating output layer takes a predetermined value to indicate the layer is output layer or not). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method and system, as disclosed by Bross, and further incorporate having when a process of extracting a sub-bitstream is performed, the flags for each of the plurality of layers are set such that at least one flag among the flags takes a predetermined value, the sub-bitstream being generated by extracting a subset of layers from the plurality of layers, as taught by Hannuksela, for improvement of scalable and Multiview video coding (Hannuksela [0108]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0626. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-6:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jamie Atala can be reached on 571-272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /KATHLEEN V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 23, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 16, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 21, 2024
Response Filed
Aug 21, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 12, 2024
Interview Requested
Nov 21, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 02, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 25, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 20, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 23, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 22, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 19, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 25, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology. Study what changed to get past this examiner.

Patent 12593133
TRACKING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587674
BIT DEPTH VARIABLE FOR HIGH PRECISION DATA IN WEIGHTED PREDICTION SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578680
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR REPRODUCING HOLOGRAM IMAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574619
DISPLAY CALIBRATION MECHANISM AND EXTERNALLY-HUNG THERMAL IMAGING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12563232
IMAGE FILE FORMAT FOR MULTIPLANE IMAGES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026

AI Strategy Recommendation

Click below to generate an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+26.0%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 287 resolved cases by this examiner