Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/795,583

Stereo Encoding Method and Stereo Encoder

Non-Final OA §DOUBLEPATENT§DP
Filed
Aug 06, 2024
Priority
Dec 30, 2016 — CN 201611261548.7 +6 more
Examiner
JEREZ LORA, WILLIAM A
Art Unit
2695
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allowance Rate
513 granted / 614 resolved
+21.6% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
633
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
89.0%
+49.0% vs TC avg
§102
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§112
3.9%
-36.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 614 resolved cases

Office Action

§DOUBLEPATENT §DP
DETAILED ACTION 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. Claim 1-2, 8-9 and 15-16 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-2, 3, 5 of US Pat 11,043,225; US Pat 11,527,253; US Pat 11,790,924; US Pat 12,087,312. Claim 1 is rejected based on Claim 1 + Claim 2 + Claim 3 + Claim 5 of US Pat 11,043,225. Claim 1 is rejected based on Claim 1 + Claim 2 + Claim 3 + Claim 5 of US Pat 11,527,253. Claim 1 is rejected based on Claim 1 + Claim 2 + Claim 3 + Claim 5 of US Pat 11,790,924. Claim 1 is rejected based on Claim 1 + Claim 2 + Claim 3 + Claim 5 of US Pat 12,087,312. Claim 2 is rejected based on Claim 1 of US Pat 11,043,225. Claim 2 is rejected based on Claim 1 of US Pat 11,527,253. Claim 2 is rejected based on Claim 1 of US Pat 11,790,924. Claim 2 is rejected based on Claim 3 of US Pat 12,087,312. Claim 8 is rejected based on Claim 1 + Claim 2 + Claim 3 + Claim 5 of US Pat 11,043,225. Claim 8 is rejected based on Claim 1 + Claim 2 + Claim 3 + Claim 5 of US Pat 11,527,253. Claim 8 is rejected based on Claim 1 + Claim 2 + Claim 3 + Claim 5 of US Pat 11,790,924. Claim 8 is rejected based on Claim 1 + Claim 2 + Claim 3 + Claim 5 of US Pat 12,087,312. Claim 9 is rejected based on Claim 1 of US Pat 11,043,225. Claim 9 is rejected based on Claim 1 of US Pat 11,527,253. Claim 9 is rejected based on Claim 1 of US Pat 11,790,924. Claim 9 is rejected based on Claim 3 of US Pat 12,087,312. Claim 15 is rejected based on Claim 1 + Claim 2 + Claim 3 + Claim 5 of US Pat 11,043,225. Claim 15 is rejected based on Claim 1 + Claim 2 + Claim 3 + Claim 5 of US Pat 11,527,253. Claim 15 is rejected based on Claim 1 + Claim 2 + Claim 3 + Claim 5 of US Pat 11,790,924. Claim 15 is rejected based on Claim 1 + Claim 2 + Claim 3 + Claim 5 of US Pat 12,087,312. Claim 16 is rejected based on Claim 1 of US Pat 11,043,225. Claim 16 is rejected based on Claim 1 of US Pat 11,527,253. Claim 16 is rejected based on Claim 1 of US Pat 11,790,924. Claim 16 is rejected based on Claim 3 of US Pat 12,087,312. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is claiming a obvious wording variation of the claims of the patent application. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A JEREZ LORA whose telephone number is (571)270-5519. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7am-9am and 11am-6pm. 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, Vivian Chin can be reached on 571-272-7848. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. WILLIAM A. JEREZ LORA Examiner Art Unit 2695 /WILLIAM A JEREZ LORA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 06, 2024
Application Filed
May 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12671953
MUSIC COLLABORATION USING VIRTUAL CONFERENCING
3y 8m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12671954
AUDIO APPARATUS AND METHOD THEREFOR
2y 7m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12666211
AUDIO PROCESSING SYSTEM, AUDIO PROCESSING DEVICE, AND AUDIO PROCESSING METHOD
2y 3m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12652490
IMAGE CAPTURE APPARATUS AND CONTROL METHOD
2y 3m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12647721
DEEP AUDIO ZOOMING: BEAMWIDTH-CONTROLLABLE NEURAL BEAMFORMER
2y 7m to grant Granted Jun 02, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+15.5%)
2y 2m (~3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 614 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