Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/023,863

CONTROL AND USE OF CHROMA QUANTIZATION PARAMETER VALUES

Non-Final OA §102§DP
Filed
Jan 16, 2025
Examiner
SUN, YULIN
Art Unit
2485
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
266 granted / 330 resolved
+22.6% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
11 currently pending
Career history
341
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.7%
-31.3% vs TC avg
§103
54.6%
+14.6% vs TC avg
§102
21.8%
-18.2% vs TC avg
§112
5.4%
-34.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 330 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §DP
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Priority CONTINUING DATA This application is a CON of 18/920,094 10/18/2024 PAT 12556704 18/920,094 is a CON of 17/953,145 09/26/2022 PAT 12284348 17/953,145 is a CON of 17/145,535 01/11/2021 PAT 11457212 17/145,535 is a CON of 16/600,287 10/11/2019 PAT 10924740 16/600,287 is a CON of 16/277,704 02/15/2019 PAT 10491898 16/277,704 is a CON of 15/202,933 07/06/2016 PAT 10250882 15/202,933 is a DIV of 13/732,356 12/31/2012 PAT 9414054 13/732,356 has PRO 61/667,381 07/02/2012 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. Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Patent No. 12,556,704. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Instant U.S. Application No. 19/023,863 Patent No. 12,556,704 2. A computer system comprising one or more processing units and memory, wherein the computer system implements a video encoder configured to perform operations comprising: determining a chroma bit depth, wherein the chroma bit depth is greater than 8; determining a chroma quantization parameter (QP) range offset, wherein the chroma QP range offset is greater than 0; encoding a picture for which values of QP vary according to a relationship between a luma component and chroma components, wherein the encoding the picture includes: quantizing transform coefficients for one or more portions of a slice of the picture for a given chroma component among the chroma components; reconstructing the one or more portions of the slice, including: inverse quantizing the transform coefficients for the one or more portions of the slice for the given chroma component based at least in part on a chroma QP for the given chroma component; and performing deblock filtering on at least part of the slice, including: determining a filter strength parameter for chroma deblock filtering for the given chroma component, wherein an intermediate value of the filter strength parameter is scaled by a factor that depends on the chroma bit depth; and performing deblock filtering across an edge for the given chroma component based at least in part the filter strength parameter; and outputting encoded data as part of a bitstream, wherein the encoded data includes results of the encoding the picture, a syntax element that indicates the chroma bit depth, and a syntax element that indicates the picture-level chroma QP offset. 1. In a computer system that implements a video encoder, a method comprising: determining a chroma bit depth, wherein the chroma bit depth is greater than 8; determining a chroma quantization parameter (QP) range offset, wherein the chroma QP range offset is greater than 0; encoding a picture for which values of QP vary according to a relationship between a luma component and chroma components, wherein the encoding the picture includes: quantizing transform coefficients for one or more portions of a slice of the picture for a given chroma component among the chroma components; reconstructing the one or more portions of the slice, including: inverse quantizing the transform coefficients for the one or more portions of the slice for the given chroma component based at least in part on a chroma QP for the given chroma component; and performing deblock filtering on at least part of the slice, including: determining a filter strength parameter for chroma deblock filtering for the given chroma component, wherein an intermediate value of the filter strength parameter is scaled by a factor that depends on the chroma bit depth; and performing deblock filtering across an edge for the given chroma component based at least in part the filter strength parameter; and outputting encoded data as part of a bitstream, wherein the encoded data includes results of the encoding the picture, a syntax element that indicates the chroma bit depth, and a syntax element that indicates the picture-level chroma QP offset. As illustrated above, the subject matter of pending claims 2-21 of the instant application are rejected under nonstatutory double patenting over patented claims 1-20 of Patent No. 12,556,704. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-21 of copending application No. 19/023,936. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Instant U.S. Application No. 19/023,863 Copending application No. 19/023,936 2. A computer system comprising one or more processing units and memory, wherein the computer system implements a video encoder configured to perform operations comprising: determining a chroma bit depth, wherein the chroma bit depth is greater than 8; determining a chroma quantization parameter (QP) range offset, wherein the chroma QP range offset is greater than 0; encoding a picture for which values of QP vary according to a relationship between a luma component and chroma components, wherein the encoding the picture includes: quantizing transform coefficients for one or more portions of a slice of the picture for a given chroma component among the chroma components; reconstructing the one or more portions of the slice, including: inverse quantizing the transform coefficients for the one or more portions of the slice for the given chroma component based at least in part on a chroma QP for the given chroma component; and performing deblock filtering on at least part of the slice, including: determining a filter strength parameter for chroma deblock filtering for the given chroma component, wherein an intermediate value of the filter strength parameter is scaled by a factor that depends on the chroma bit depth; and performing deblock filtering across an edge for the given chroma component based at least in part the filter strength parameter; and outputting encoded data as part of a bitstream, wherein the encoded data includes results of the encoding the picture, a syntax element that indicates the chroma bit depth, and a syntax element that indicates the picture-level chroma QP offset. 2. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media having stored thereon computer-executable instructions for causing one or more processing units, when programmed thereby, to perform operations comprising: determining a chroma bit depth, wherein the chroma bit depth is greater than 8; determining a chroma quantization parameter (QP) range offset, wherein the chroma QP range offset is greater than 0; encoding a picture for which values of QP vary according to a relationship between a luma component and chroma components, wherein the encoding the picture includes: quantizing transform coefficients for one or more portions of a slice of the picture for a given chroma component among the chroma components; reconstructing the one or more portions of the slice, including: inverse quantizing the transform coefficients for the one or more portions of the slice for the given chroma component based at least in part on a chroma QP for the given chroma component; and performing deblock filtering on at least part of the slice, including: determining a filter strength parameter for chroma deblock filtering for the given chroma component, wherein an intermediate value of the filter strength parameter is scaled by a factor that depends on the chroma bit depth; and performing deblock filtering across an edge for the given chroma component based at least in part the filter strength parameter; and outputting encoded data as part of a bitstream, wherein the encoded data includes results of the encoding the picture, a syntax element that indicates the chroma bit depth, and a syntax element that indicates the picture-level chroma QP offset. As illustrated above, the subject matter of pending claims 2-21 of the instant application are rejected under nonstatutory double patenting over patented claims 2-21 of copending application No. 19/023,936. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably in district claims have not in fact been patented. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 pre-AIA 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 – (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States. Claims 20, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Yu (US 2010/0208804 A1). Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable media (CRM) having stored thereon encoded data in at least part of a bitstream. The claim does not recite that the CRM contains executable instruction, that when executed, implement the encoding method. The bitstream is a product produced by the encoding method. Therefore, the claims are not limited to the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. (See MPEP 2113 - Product-by-Process claims.) Hence, the encoding method steps recited are given patentable weight only to structures in the bitstream that are implied by the steps. To be given patentable weight, the CRM and the bitstream (i.e. descriptive material) must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the descriptive material performs some function with respect to the CRM to which it is associated. See 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 CRM storing the claimed bitstream in claim 20 merely services as a support for the CRM of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and the CRM. Therefore, the structure 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 Yu (US 2010/0208804 A1) which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream ([0132] storing the encoded bitstream on a computer readable medium). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Saigo (US 2008/0317377 A1), discloses quantization; Lappalainen (US 2006/0050784 A1), discloses generating quantization matrix. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YULIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-1043. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM - 6PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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. /YULIN SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 16, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604004
IMAGE ENCODING METHOD/DEVICE, IMAGE DECODING METHOD/DEVICE, AND RECORDING MEDIUM IN WHICH BITSTREAM IS STORED
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598331
Transmitting Image Data
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587645
COMPLEXITY AWARE ENCODING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581075
IMAGE ENCODING METHOD/DEVICE, IMAGE DECODING METHOD/DEVICE, AND RECORDING MEDIUM IN WHICH BITSTREAM IS STORED
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574512
IMAGE ENCODING METHOD/DEVICE, IMAGE DECODING METHOD/DEVICE, AND RECORDING MEDIUM IN WHICH BITSTREAM IS STORED
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
81%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+15.2%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 330 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