Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/775,194

ENCODER AND BITSTREAM FOR GEOMETRIC PARTITIONING WITH AN ADAPTIVE NUMBER OF REGIONS

Final Rejection §112§DP
Filed
Jul 17, 2024
Examiner
CHIO, TAT CHI
Art Unit
2486
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Op Solutions LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
610 granted / 836 resolved
+15.0% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+16.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
885
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.7%
-31.3% vs TC avg
§103
52.4%
+12.4% vs TC avg
§102
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
§112
7.2%
-32.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 836 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §DP
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. US 12075046 B2 (“reference patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Consider application claim 1, claim 1 of reference patent discloses a decoder, the decoder comprising circuitry configured to: receive a bitstream comprising a coded current picture including a coded coding tree unit and signaling information, the signaling information including a sequence parameter set containing a flag indicating that geometric partitioning is enabled for the bitstream, first geometric partition index information enabling the decoder to determine for a first straight line partition boundary in the coding tree unit a first endpoint on a boundary of the coding tree unit and a second endpoint on the boundary of the coding tree unit, second geometric partition index information enabling the decoder to determine for a second straight line partition boundary in the coding tree unit a first endpoint on the boundary of the coding tree unit and a second endpoint on the first straight line partition boundary; decode the coded coding tree unit using the first geometric partition index information and second geometric partition index information to reconstruct the coding tree unit, the reconstructed coding tree unit being partitioned into three non-rectangular regions by the first and second straight line partition boundaries. Claim 1 of reference patent discloses all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies. Consider application 2, claim 3 of reference patent discloses the coding tree unit is a 128×128 coding tree unit comprising multiple coding units and the signaling information including transform type information. Claim 3 of reference patent discloses all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies. Consider application 3, claim 2 of reference patent discloses A method of decoding, the method comprising: receiving, by a decoder, a bitstream including a coded current picture including a coded coding tree unit, and signaling information, the signaling information including a sequence parameter set containing a flag indicating that geometric partitioning is enabled for the bitstream, first geometric partition index information enabling the decoder to determine for a first straight line partition boundary in the coding tree unit a first endpoint on a boundary of the coding tree unit and a second endpoint on the boundary of the coding tree unit, second geometric partition index information enabling the decoder to determine for a second straight line partition boundary in the coding tree unit a first endpoint on the boundary of the coding tree unit and a second endpoint on the first straight line partition boundary; and decoding, by the decoder, the coded coding tree unit using the first geometric partition index information and second geometric partition index information to reconstruct the coding tree unit, the reconstructed coding tree unit being partitioned into three non-rectangular regions by the first and second straight line partition boundaries. Claim 2 of reference patent discloses all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies. Consider application 4, claim 4 of reference patent discloses the coding tree unit is a 128×128 coding tree unit comprising multiple coding units and the signaling information including transform type information. Claim 4 of reference patent discloses all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies. Consider application 5, claim 2 of reference patent discloses A method of decoding, the method comprising: receiving, by a decoder, a bitstream including a coded current picture including a coded coding tree unit, and signaling information, the signaling information including a sequence parameter set containing a flag indicating that geometric partitioning is enabled for the bitstream, first geometric partition index information enabling the decoder to determine for a first straight line partition boundary in the coding tree unit a first endpoint on a boundary of the coding tree unit and a second endpoint on the boundary of the coding tree unit, second geometric partition index information enabling the decoder to determine for a second straight line partition boundary in the coding tree unit a first endpoint on the boundary of the coding tree unit and a second endpoint on the first straight line partition boundary; and decoding, by the decoder, the coded coding tree unit using the first geometric partition index information and second geometric partition index information to reconstruct the coding tree unit, the reconstructed coding tree unit being partitioned into three non-rectangular regions by the first and second straight line partition boundaries. Claim 2 of reference patent discloses the process of encoding the bitstream that is being stored in the non-transitory computer readable media. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies. Consider application 6, claim 4 of reference patent discloses the coding tree unit is a 128×128 coding tree unit comprising multiple coding units and the signaling information including transform type information. Claim 4 of reference patent discloses all the limitations in the application claim. Thus, non-statutory double patenting applies. 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 1-6 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. Claim 1 recites “an encoder….” The claim merely a circuitry that generates an encoded bitstream and a description of the bitstream. However, the claim does not present how the different information (i.e. signaling information, first geometric partition index information, and second geometric partition index information) are generated. Thus, the scope of the claim is not clear. Claim 3 and 5 recite “a method of transmitting an encoded bitstream….” The claim generally recites generating an encoded bitstream and a description of the bitstream. However, the claim does not present how the different information (i.e. signaling information, first geometric partition index information, second geometric partition index information) are generated. Thus, the scope of the claim is not clear. 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 TAT CHI CHIO whose telephone number is (571)272-9563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-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, JAMIE J ATALA can be reached at 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 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. /TAT C CHIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 17, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112, §DP
Jan 05, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Final Rejection — §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12587653
Spatial Layer Rate Allocation
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12549764
THREE-DIMENSIONAL DATA ENCODING METHOD, THREE-DIMENSIONAL DATA DECODING METHOD, THREE-DIMENSIONAL DATA ENCODING DEVICE, AND THREE-DIMENSIONAL DATA DECODING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12549845
CAMERA SETTING ADJUSTMENT BASED ON EVENT MAPPING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12546657
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR REMOTE MONITORING OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12549710
MULTIPLE HYPOTHESIS PREDICTION WITH TEMPLATE MATCHING IN VIDEO CODING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+16.6%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 836 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