Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 18, 2026
Application No. 18/946,489

ENCODER, DECODER, ENCODING METHOD, AND DECODING METHOD

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Nov 13, 2024
Priority
Mar 30, 2018 — provisional 62/650,458 +8 more
Examiner
MAHMUD, FARHAN
Art Unit
2483
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Panasonic Holdings Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 10m
Est. Remaining
66%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allowance Rate
221 granted / 395 resolved
-2.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
439
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.4%
-34.6% vs TC avg
§103
49.1%
+9.1% vs TC avg
§102
34.5%
-5.5% vs TC avg
§112
8.7%
-31.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 395 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 Amendment Applicant previously filed claims 1-3. Claim 3 has been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-3 are pending in the current application. Terminal Disclaimer The terminal disclaimer filed on 04/06/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 3/30/38 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded. Response to Arguments The Terminal disclaimer, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to claims 1-3 has been entered. Therefore, the double patenting rejection of claims 1-3 has been withdrawn. Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Claim 3, Applicant argues that the amendments to this claim are sufficient to overcome the product-by-process considerations as previously issued. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a bitstream and a computer program having instructions for transmission thereof, the bitstream including quantized coefficients of a current block to which a decoder performs an inverse quantization process, wherein in the inverse quantization process.” This language does nothing to address that the storage of the bitstream, even if the bitstream has data which may be used in a decoder to perform an inverse quantization process, do nothing to change the status of the bitstream merely being a product. Even with the recitation of a computer program product having instructions for transmission, no change has been made to the scope of the patentability of the claims and their underlying rejection. Applicant is reminded that the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The memory storing the claimed bitstream and computer program having instructions for transmission thereof in claim 3 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and computer program provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Wang which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream. In light of the above remarks, the rejection of claim 3 is maintained as before. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-2 are allowed. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang; Ye-Kui (US 20140086333 A1). Regarding claim 3, claim 3 claims a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream and a computer program having instructions for transmission thereof (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The memory storing the claimed bitstream and computer program in claim 3 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and computer program and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and compute program and storage medium. Therefore the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Wang which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream. Wang discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a bitstream and a computer program having instructions for transmission thereof (¶60 and 44-45, “Video encoder 20” implemented as a variety of suitable circuitry such as one or more microprocessors; Paragraphs 501-502). Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7. 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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached on 5712727383. 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. /FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 13, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102
Apr 06, 2026
Response Filed
Jun 29, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12701211
Reducing Power Consumption of a Lenticular Display
2y 10m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12664735
Mixed Reality Combination System
2y 8m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12641286
Geometry Conversion for 360-degree Video Coding
2y 9m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12634460
VISUAL QUALITY SIGNALLING MECHANISM
1y 11m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12634441
AN APPARATUS, A METHOD AND A COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR VIDEO CODING AND DECODING
1y 4m 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
56%
Grant Probability
66%
With Interview (+10.2%)
3y 7m (~1y 10m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 395 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