Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/161,722

METHOD FOR CODING AND AN APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jan 30, 2023
Examiner
AYNALEM, NATHNAEL B
Art Unit
2488
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Nokia Technologies Oy
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
505 granted / 662 resolved
+18.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
694
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.6%
-34.4% vs TC avg
§103
39.5%
-0.5% vs TC avg
§102
22.3%
-17.7% vs TC avg
§112
21.6%
-18.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 662 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. 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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/11/2025 has been entered. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-7, 9-13 and 15-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In claim 1 there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the block associated with the first spatial motion vector prediction candidate”. In claim 1 recites “examining if the number of spatial motion vector prediction candidates in the motion vector prediction list is smaller than a maximum number”. The term “a maximum number” is a relative term and is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. See the current application para. [0088] stating “ [i]n some embodiments the maximum number of spatial motion prediction candidates to be included in the merge list is four but in some embodiments the maximum number may be less than four or greater than four.” One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, thereby renders the claim indefinite. Claims 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 15, 19, and 23 recite the term “a maximum number” and are rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 1. Claim 1 recites “the first spatial motion vector prediction candidate has essentially similar motion information than the spatial motion vector prediction candidate above the prediction unit”. The term “essentially similar” introduces a relative comparison without clear boundaries, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, thereby renders the claim indefinite. Claims 6, 9, 13, 15, and 20 use the term “essentially similar” and are rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 1. Independent claims 9, 15 and 20 are rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 1. The rest of the dependent claims are rejected based on their dependency from the rejected claims 1, 9, 15 and 20. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHNAEL AYNALEM whose telephone number is (571)270-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5:30 PM ET. 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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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. /NATHNAEL AYNALEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 30, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 30, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jan 08, 2024
Response Filed
Mar 13, 2024
Final Rejection — §112
Sep 19, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 25, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 17, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Apr 22, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 11, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600319
VEHICLE DOOR INTERFACE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12587634
Disallowing Unnecessary Layers in Multi-Layer Video Bitstreams
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581103
VIDEO ENCODING/DECODING METHOD AND DEVICE, AND BITSTREAM STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581126
LOW COMPLEXITY NN-BASED IN LOOP FILTER ARCHITECTURES WITH SEPARABLE CONVOLUTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12572023
OPTICAL NAVIGATION DEVICE WITH INCREASED DEPTH OF FIELD
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

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+13.9%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 662 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