Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/871,222

Method and Apparatus for Entropy Coding Partition Splitting Decisions in Video Coding System

Non-Final OA §102§DP
Filed
Dec 03, 2024
Examiner
NOH, JAE NAM
Art Unit
2481
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
MediaTek Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
382 granted / 445 resolved
+27.8% vs TC avg
Minimal -10% lift
Without
With
+-10.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
471
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
14.2%
-25.8% vs TC avg
§103
37.5%
-2.5% vs TC avg
§102
31.5%
-8.5% vs TC avg
§112
7.8%
-32.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 445 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §DP
DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to the application filed on 12/3/2024. Claims 1-24 are pending. Claims 17-24 are withdrawn from examination. 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 . Information Disclosure Statement The references listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 12/3/2024 has/have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449). Restriction Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claims 1-16 drawn to high level syntax selecting among multiple initial CABAC probability sets for partition-tree syntax, classified in H04N19/13. II. Claim 17-24 drawn using one or more different context models for HBT (Horizontal Binary Tree) and VBT (Vertical Binary Tree) applied to a non-square block, classified in H04N19/11 and H04N19/12. The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons: Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination I has separate utility such as being used in combination without using one or more different context models for HBT (Horizontal Binary Tree) and VBT (Vertical Binary Tree) applied to a non-square block.. See MPEP § 806.05(d). The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention. The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. During a telephone conversation with MCCLURE, DANIEL on 02/4/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-16. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 17-24 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claim Mapping Notation In this office action, following notations are being used to refer to the paragraph numbers or column number and lines of portions of the cited reference. In this office action, following notations are being used to refer to the paragraph numbers or column number and lines of portions of the cited reference. [0005] (Paragraph number [0005]) C5 (Column 5) Pa5 (Page 5) S5 (Section 5) Furthermore, unless necessary to distinguish from other references in this action, “et al.” will be omitted when referring to the reference. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-3, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) and (a2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 20160219276 A1) 1. A method of video decoding, the method comprising: receiving input data associated with a current picture area in a current picture, wherein the input data comprise encoded data associated with the current picture area to be decoded; “[0031] Video coding system 10 illustrated in FIG. 1 is merely an example and the techniques of this disclosure may apply to video coding settings (e.g., video encoding or video decoding) that do not necessarily include any data communication between the encoding and decoding devices. In other examples, data is retrieved from a local memory, streamed over a network, or the like.” parsing one or more coded bits from a bitstream, wherein said one or more coded bits comprise the encoded data for first information related to a partitioning tree of the current picture area; “[0110] In one example, entropy encoding unit 118 may be configured to use one dedicated context model to code the split_cu_flag syntax element upon determining that the current CU is very likely to be further split (e.g., when the CU depth of the current CU is smaller than the minimal CU depth of the spatial neighbors and/or temporal neighbors of the current CU).” parsing one or more high-level syntaxes from the bitstream; “[0127] The NAL units of the bitstream may include coded slice NAL units. As part of decoding the bitstream, entropy decoding unit 150 may extract and entropy decode syntax elements from the coded slice NAL units. Each of the coded slices may include a slice header and slice data.” applying entropy decoding to said one or more coded bits by using context formation to recover the first information related to the partitioning tree, [0118] In various examples in accordance with the techniques of this disclosure, entropy encoding unit 118 may add two additional contexts for coding the split_cu_flag or a syntax element with the same semantics. wherein the context formation comprises one or more initial context model probability values as indicated by said one or more high-level syntaxes; and “[0091] Before encoding video data (e.g., a slice of video data), entropy encoding unit 118 initializes the probability models (e.g., context models) based on some pre-defined values.” partitioning the current picture area into one or more blocks according to the partitioning tree for decoding said one or more blocks. “[0041] In some examples, a CU may include a coding node and one or more prediction units (PUs) and/or transform units (TUs) associated with the coding node. The size of the CU may correspond to a size of the coding node and may be square in shape. The size of the CU may range from, for example, 8×8 pixels up to the size of the tree block with a maximum of 64×64 pixels or greater. Each CU may contain one or more PUs and one or more TUs. Syntax data associated with a CU may describe, for example, partitioning of the CU into one or more PUs.” 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first information comprises one or more CU (Coding Unit) split flags. [0118] In various examples in accordance with the techniques of this disclosure, entropy encoding unit 118 may add two additional contexts for coding the split_cu_flag or a syntax element with the same semantics. 3. The method of claim 2, wherein the first information comprises CU split decision other than said one or more CU split flags. “[0085] Entropy encoding unit 118 may receive data from other functional components of video encoder 20. For example, entropy encoding unit 118 may receive coefficient blocks from quantization unit 106 and may receive syntax elements from prediction processing unit 100. Such syntax elements may include syntax elements related to the size and partitioning of CTUs and CUs.” “[0118] In various examples in accordance with the techniques of this disclosure, entropy encoding unit 118 may add two additional contexts for coding the split_cu_flag or a syntax element with the same semantics.” 6. The method of claim 1, wherein said one or more high-level syntaxes are parsed from SPS (sequence parameter set), PPS (picture parameter set), PH (picture head), SH (slice header), or a combination thereof. “[0127] The NAL units of the bitstream may include coded slice NAL units. As part of decoding the bitstream, entropy decoding unit 150 may extract and entropy decode syntax elements from the coded slice NAL units. Each of the coded slices may include a slice header and slice data.” 7. The method of claim 1, wherein whether to allow said one or more initial context model probability values is controlled by said one or more high-level syntaxes parsed from the bitstream. “[0110] In one example, entropy encoding unit 118 may be configured to use one dedicated context model to code the split_cu_flag syntax element upon determining that the current CU is very likely to be further split (e.g., when the CU depth of the current CU is smaller than the minimal CU depth of the spatial neighbors and/or temporal neighbors of the current CU).” 8. The method of claim 1, wherein said one or more high-level syntaxes are parsed from the bitstream at a picture level, slice level, tile level, CTU-row level, CTU level, VPDU level, or a combination thereof. “[0127] The NAL units of the bitstream may include coded slice NAL units. As part of decoding the bitstream, entropy decoding unit 150 may extract and entropy decode syntax elements from the coded slice NAL units. Each of the coded slices may include a slice header and slice data.” Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4, 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding the claims 4, 5, applicants uniquely claimed distinct features, which are not found in the prior art, either singularly or in an obvious combination of all the limitation of the claim, the distinct features being the one or more initial context model probability values are derived according to a video content type. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Esenlik (US9014494) and Liao et al. (US 20240348782 A1) disclose relevant art related to the subject matter of the present invention. A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE N. NOH whose telephone number is (571) 270-0686. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30AM-5PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. /JAE N NOH/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 2481
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 03, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604025
METHOD FOR VERIFYING IMAGE DATA ENCODED IN AN ENCODER UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593071
ENCODER, DECODER, ENCODING METHOD, AND DECODING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587679
LOW-LATENCY MACHINE LEARNING-BASED STEREO STREAMING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12574571
FRAME SELECTION FOR STREAMING APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12574529
IMAGE ENCODING AND DECODING METHOD AND APPARATUS
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (-10.0%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 445 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