Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 05, 2026
Application No. 18/780,332

TECHNIQUES FOR MULTIPLE CONFORMANCE POINTS IN MEDIA CODING

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jul 22, 2024
Priority
Oct 23, 2018 — provisional 62/749,283 +3 more
Examiner
VAZQUEZ COLON, MARIA E
Art Unit
2482
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Company Limited
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 0m
Est. Remaining
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allowance Rate
424 granted / 581 resolved
+15.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
607
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
85.5%
+45.5% vs TC avg
§102
5.9%
-34.1% vs TC avg
§112
4.2%
-35.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 581 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . 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. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submission filed on March 17, 2026 has been entered. Double Patenting The double patenting rejection to claims 1-4, 7-11, and 14-18 has been withdrawn in view of current amendments. 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 7-13 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 7 recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a video bitstream generated by a video encoding method comprising:”. Claim 7 is directed to a non-transitory medium storing a bitstream of video wherein clauses that appear to describe how the bitstream was generated. These elements or steps are not performed by an intended computer, and the bitstream is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for storing the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the generation of the bitstream and intended computer system. Therefore, those claim elements are not given patentable weight. Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. See MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, is a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a storage for information or data that is not meant for being executed, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. The Examiner suggests that the claim be amended so that it is directed to a functional relationship. For example, in this particular case, the claim could instead be recited as “A method of storing a bitstream of a video into a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, wherein the bitstream is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus, wherein the method comprising:” Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-6 and 14-20 allowed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON whose telephone number is (571)270-1103. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 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, CHRISTOPHER S KELLEY can be reached at (571)272-7331. 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. /MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON/Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 22, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Sep 25, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 18, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jan 20, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 17, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 01, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12671820
SIGNALING FOR GREEN METADATA
2y 2m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12666003
ENCODING AND DECODING METHODS AND APPARATUS
4y 1m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12664780
Utilizing a plurality of on-road vehicles for increasing descriptive accuracy of areas and objects
2y 6m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12666034
IMAGE ENCODING/DECODING METHOD AND APPARATUS, AND RECORDING MEDIUM FOR STORING BITSTREAM
1y 11m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12634525
LARGE SEI MESSAGES
1y 7m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+13.4%)
2y 11m (~1y 0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 581 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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