Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/021,315

CODING SCHEME FOR DEPTH DATA

Final Rejection §DP
Filed
Jan 15, 2025
Priority
Sep 20, 2019 — EU 19198801.3 +2 more
Examiner
ZHOU, ZHIHAN
Art Unit
2482
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Koninklijke Philips N.V.
OA Round
2 (Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
9m
Est. Remaining
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allowance Rate
808 granted / 1011 resolved
+21.9% vs TC avg
Minimal +1% lift
Without
With
+1.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
1037
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
82.5%
+42.5% vs TC avg
§102
4.8%
-35.2% vs TC avg
§112
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1011 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 05/21/2026. 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,225,178. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,225,178, either singularly or in combination, contain each and every element and/or render each and every element of claims 1-20 of the instant application obvious. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the issued patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. More specifically, the independent claims of U.S. Patent Number 12,225,178 disclose all the elements and steps of the independent claims of the instant application and, as such, anticipate each and feature of the aforementioned independent claims of the instant application. Allowable Subject Matter Applicant’s amendment and arguments presented 05/21/2026 constitute the basis for the reasons of allowance as the current prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to teach or reasonably suggest all the claimed features of claims 1, 6, 13, and 17, structurally and functionally interconnected with other limitations in the manner as cited in the claims and dependent claims. The independent claims are interpreted particularly based on Page 4, lines 17-33, Page 5, line 5 to Page 6, line 21, Page 9, line 31 to Page 11, line 3, and Page 11, lines 9-21 of applicant’s specification. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2026 regarding the 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, because the pending double patenting rejections have yet to be addressed, they are being maintained. As such, Examiner maintains all rejections. 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 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

Jan 15, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP
May 21, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 07, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12684135
CROSS-COMPONENT LINEAR MODEL (CCLM) INTRA PREDICTION-BASED VIDEO ENCODING/DECODING METHOD, APPARATUS, AND RECORDING MEDIUM FOR STORING BITSTREAM
2y 0m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12684176
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR EMPLOYING DYNAMIC RANGE MAPPING INFORMATION FOR HDR IMAGE DECODER CONSIDERING BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY
1y 9m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12684100
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
1y 8m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12679273
MOVABLE APPARATUS
1y 8m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12676982
CODING A MERGED BLOCK THAT OVERLAPS A REFERENCE BLOCK IN INTRA BLOCK COPY MODE
2y 7m to grant Granted Jul 07, 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 (+1.1%)
2y 3m (~9m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1011 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