Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/825,993

ENCODER AND BITSTREAM FOR ADAPTIVE RESOLUTION MANAGEMENT SIGNALING

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Sep 05, 2024
Priority
Aug 06, 2019 — provisional 62/883,459 +4 more
Examiner
ZHOU, ZHIHAN
Art Unit
2482
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Dolby International AB
OA Round
2 (Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
6m
Est. Remaining
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allowance Rate
794 granted / 997 resolved
+21.6% vs TC avg
Minimal +1% lift
Without
With
+1.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1020
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
83.1%
+43.1% vs TC avg
§102
4.5%
-35.5% vs TC avg
§112
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 997 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 . DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to an amendment filed on 02/18/2026. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: decoder configured to receive, decoder configured to decode, etc... in claim 7. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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. Claim 7 is 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 limitations “decoder configured to receive”, “decoder configured to decode”, etc... in claim 7 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no clear disclosure of structure apparent in the decoder in the aforementioned independent claims. Therefore, claim 7 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-4 and 6 are allowable. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to teach or reasonably suggest all the claimed features of claims 1, 6, and 7, structurally and functionally interconnected with other limitations in the manner as cited in the claims and dependent claims. The independent claims are particularly interpreted based on [0017] and [0024]-[0027] of applicant’s specification. Claim 7 would be allowable if the above 112 rejection is overcome. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. However, a new ground of rejection has been incorporated above solely due to newly added claim 7. In view of the above reasons, Examiner maintains all rejections. 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 ZHIHAN ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7284. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays 8:30am-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, Christopher 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. /ZHIHAN ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 05, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Feb 18, 2026
Response Filed
May 01, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12641289
TUNED LINE GRAPH TRANSFORMS (LGT)
2y 6m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12641225
IMAGE ENCODING/DECODING METHOD USING NEURAL NETWORK-BASED IN-LOOP FILTER, DEVICE, AND RECORDING MEDIUM STORING BITSTREAM
2y 4m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12641251
METHODS AND DEVICES FOR LOSSLESS CODING MODES IN VIDEO CODING
1y 8m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12627790
Harmonized Local Illumination Compensation and Modified Inter Coding Tools
2y 9m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12627795
METHODS FOR COMPLEXITY REDUCTION OF NEURAL NETWORK BASED VIDEO CODING TOOLS
2y 2m to grant Granted May 12, 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
80%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+1.4%)
2y 3m (~6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 997 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