Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/155,192

FLEXIBLE SLICE, TILE AND BRICK PARTITIONING

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jan 17, 2023
Examiner
LOTFI, KYLE M
Art Unit
2425
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Tencent America LLC
OA Round
4 (Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
71%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
226 granted / 355 resolved
+5.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
377
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§103
50.3%
+10.3% vs TC avg
§102
25.8%
-14.2% vs TC avg
§112
13.4%
-26.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 355 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Priority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 111(b), and 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows: The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 16/908,036, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Specifically, neither the ‘036 application nor the provisional application 62/865,945 discloses a num_bricks_in_slice_minus1 flag as now claimed. Therefore, the earliest priority date for the current claims is the effective filing date, 1/17/2023. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 21, 22, 24-28, 30-34, and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The independent claims recite a “num_bricks_in_slice_minus1” flag for which there is no support in the originally filed application specification or claims. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 21, 22, 24-28, 30-34, and 36-38 are allowable over the prior art. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The prior art does not disclose or suggest: “when a value of rect_slice_flag is signaled, signaling, in a picture parameter set associated with a picture, both a slice address and a slice ID; when the value of rect_slice_flag is not signaled, signaling, in the picture parameter set associated with a picture, num_bricks_in_slice_minus1; and” The closest prior art, Zhang, US 2022/0256146 A1, discloses that num_bricks_in_slice_minus1, when present, specifies the number of bricks in the slice minus1. The value of num_bricks_in_slice_minus1 shall be in the range of 0 to NumBricksInPic−1, inclusive. When rect_slice flag is equal to 0 and single_brick_per_slice_flag is equal to 1, the value of num_bricks_in_slice_minus1 is inferred to be equal to 0. When single_brick_per_slice_flag is equal to 1, the value of num_bricks_in_slice_minus1 is inferred to be equal to 0. In other words, the prior art discloses that when rect_slice_flag is not signaled and single_brick_slice is signaled, num_bricks_in_slice_minus1 is inferred to be equal to 0. There is no explicit disclosure about the value of num_bricks_in_slice_minus1 based solely on rect_slice_flag’s not being signaled. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KYLE M LOTFI whose telephone number is (571)272-8762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00. 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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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. /KYLE M LOTFI/Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 17, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 31, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Feb 06, 2025
Response Filed
May 07, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Jul 14, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 12, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Nov 19, 2025
Interview Requested
Jan 28, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 10, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598317
HYBRID SPATIO-TEMPORAL NEURAL MODELS FOR VIDEO COMPRESSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593070
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SIGNALING SOURCE PICTURE TIMING INFORMATION FOR TEMPORAL SUBLAYERS IN VIDEO CODING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587646
NETWORK BASED IMAGE FILTERING FOR VIDEO CODING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581061
MATRIX BASED INTRA PREDICTION WITH MODE-GLOBAL SETTINGS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574527
METHODS FOR ENCODING AND DECODING FEATURE DATA, AND DECODER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
64%
Grant Probability
71%
With Interview (+7.2%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 355 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