Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/916,911

SCALING LIST CONTROL IN VIDEO CODING

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Oct 04, 2022
Examiner
TORRENTE, RICHARD T
Art Unit
2485
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Interdigital Ce Patent Holdings SAS
OA Round
4 (Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
717 granted / 1039 resolved
+11.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
1079
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.5%
-33.5% vs TC avg
§103
51.9%
+11.9% vs TC avg
§102
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
§112
8.3%
-31.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1039 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 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 . 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 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 of this title, 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 1-3, 5-13 and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (US 2023/0043717 A1) in view of Iwamura et al. (US 2022/0217348). Regarding claim 1, Although Deng discloses a method (see 700 in fig. 7), comprising: generating, a sequence parameter set (SPS) flag (see “rule” in “SPS” in 702 of fig. 7) to control disabling a scaling list for a set of coding blocks (see “whether or how to include, in an adaptation parameter set (APS), information related to a scaling list” in 702 of fig. 7), wherein the set of coding blocks were coded with the ACT tool (see “the APS includes chroma component related syntax elements” in 702 of fig. 7; e.g. see “chroma” adaptively transformed through scaling in ¶ [0153]); and encoding video data including the set of coding blocks based on the SPS flag (see 114 in fig. 4), it is noted that Deng does not provide the particular wherein the generating includes a condition if a scaling list is available and if an adaptive color transfer (ACT) tool is enabled to control scaling list. However, Iwamura discloses an encoding method of generating scaling signal wherein the generating includes a condition if a scaling list is available (see S13 in fig. 2) and if an adaptive color transfer (ACT) tool is enabled (see “Yes” in S11 of fig. 2) to control scaling list. Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Iwamura teachings of scaling condition into Deng scaling for the benefit of restraining deterioration in image quality when ACT is applied. Regarding claim 2, the claim(s) recite an apparatus, comprising: a processor (e.g. see ¶ [0026]) with analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise. Regarding claim 3, the claim(s) recite a method (see fig. 7; see 120 in fig. 4) with analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise. Regarding claims 5 and 16, Deng further discloses wherein the SPS flag is indicated in a syntax for controlling scaling matrices, wherein the scaling matrices comprise at least the scaling list (see “whether or how to include, in an adaptation parameter set (APS), information related to a scaling list” in 702 of fig. 7). Regarding claims 6 and 17, Deng further discloses comprising controlling scaling matrices for an adaptive color transform and/or a joint chroma coding (e.g. see chroma scaling process under “scaling_list_present_flag” in ¶ [0153]). Regarding claims 7 and 18, Deng further discloses wherein the SPS flag indicates that scaling matrices are not applied to the set of coding blocks coded with the ACT tool (see “whether or how to include, in an adaptation parameter set (APS), information related to a scaling list” in 702 of fig. 7). Regarding claims 8 and 19, Deng further discloses wherein the SPS flag indicates that scaling matrices are applied to the set of coding blocks coded with the ACT tool (see “Performing a conversion” in 702 of fig. 7). Regarding claims 9 and 20, Deng further discloses wherein the SPS flag is indicated in a syntax for controlling scaling matrices, wherein the syntax comprises multiple flags to control scaling matrices for separate functions (e.g. see ¶ [0150]). Regarding claims 10 and 21, Deng further discloses wherein the syntax comprises a flag to control scaling matrices for more than one function (e.g. see ¶ [0150]). Regarding claims 11 and 22, Deng further discloses wherein the syntax comprises a flag to control scaling matrices for one function comprising either an adaptive color transform or a joint chroma coding (e.g. see “chroma” adaptively transformed through scaling in ¶ [0153]). Regarding claim 12, Deng further discloses comprising: an apparatus (see 100 in fig. 4) according to claim 1; and at least one of (i) an antenna configured to receive a signal (see 116 and 126 in fig. 4), the signal including the video block (see 114 in fig. 4), (ii) a band limiter configured to limit the received signal to a band of frequencies that includes the video block (see 116 and 126 in fig. 4), and (iii) a display configured to display an output representative of a video block (see 122 in fig. 4). Regarding claim 13, Deng further discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium containing data content generated according to the method of claim 1, for playback using a processor (e.g. see ¶ [0028]). Regarding claims 23 and 24, the references further discloses comprising: generating, if a scaling list is available (see Iwamura S13 in fig. 2) and if a joint chroma coding (JCBCR) tool is enabled (see Deng “no_joint_cbcr_constraint_flag” in ¶ [0096]), a sequence parameter set (SPS) flag to control disabling a scaling list for a set of coding blocks (see Deng “rule” in “SPS” in 702 of fig. 7), wherein the set of coding blocks were coded with the JCBCR tool (see Deng “sps_joint_cbcr_enabled_flag” in ¶ [0105]); and encoding video data including the set of coding blocks based on the SPS flag (see Deng 214 in fig. 5). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 6/27/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicants asserts that Deng does not disclose generating, a sequence parameter set (SPS) flag to control disabling a scaling list for a set of coding blocks. The Examiners respectfully disagrees. Deng 702 discloses a rule for whether or how to include information related to APS with scaling list, wherein e.g. ¶ [0153] shows how the syntaxes are generated to control disabling or not of scaling list. 2. Applicant next argued that Deng does not disclose wherein the set of coding blocks were coded with the ACT tool. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Deng ¶ [0153]) discloses chroma scaling, wherein a list of chroma scaling (tool) indicates multiple scaling, thus, making the chroma scaling with scaling list analogous to adaptive color transform to any scale (see “the APS includes chroma component related syntax elements” in 702 of fig. 7; e.g. see “chroma” adaptively transformed through scaling in ¶ [0153]). 3. Applicant further argued that Iwamura does not teach or suggest generating a flag if a scaling list is available and if an ACT tool is enabled. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The primary reference Deng already teaches generating a flag if a scaling list is available (see rebuttals above). There is no requirement that the secondary reference Iwanura further teaches generating a flag if a scaling list is available because the limitation was already taught by the primary reference. The secondary reference merely teaches the deficiency of the primary reference of providing the conditional detail of how the scaling list is applied relating to the ACT tool. The secondary reference does not provide any teaching that destroys the interrelated purpose of the primary reference. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the limitations are met. 4. Applicant argument for claims 23 and 24 are based on the premise of claim 1 argument. The Examiner respectfully disagrees (see above rebuttals). Citation of Pertinent Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1. Deshpande et al. (US 2022/0394301), discloses coding with adaptive color transform with SPS signaling. 2. Paluri et al. (US 2022/0159279), discloses signaling of scaling list and ACT. 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 RICHARD T TORRENTE whose telephone number is (571)270-3702. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6:45-3:15 pm. 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, Jay Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2988. 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. /RICHARD T TORRENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 04, 2022
Application Filed
Oct 04, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 20, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 07, 2024
Response Filed
Sep 24, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 13, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 27, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 21, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604032
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PERFORMING PADDING IN CODING OF A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL DATA SET
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604041
METHODS AND DEVICES FOR GEOMETRIC PARTITIONING MODE SPLIT MODES REORDERING WITH PRE-DEFINED MODES ORDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604014
METHOD AND SYSTEM OF VIDEO PROCESSING WITH LOW LATENCY BITSTREAM DISTRIBUTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593062
IMAGE ENCODING AND DECODING METHOD WITH MERGE FLAG AND MOTION VECTORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12581067
INTRA PREDICTION METHOD AND DEVICE USING MPM LIST
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get 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
69%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+14.0%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1039 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month