Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 19/031,743

Constraining Slice Header Processing Overhead in Video Coding

Non-Final OA §DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
Jan 18, 2025
Priority
Sep 11, 2012 — provisional 61/699,474 +6 more
Examiner
NAWAZ, TALHA M
Art Unit
2483
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Texas Instruments Incorporated
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
5m
Est. Remaining
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allowance Rate
565 granted / 632 resolved
+31.4% vs TC avg
Minimal -1% lift
Without
With
+-0.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
654
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.5%
-31.5% vs TC avg
§103
51.3%
+11.3% vs TC avg
§102
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
§112
7.4%
-32.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 632 resolved cases

Office Action

§DOUBLEPATENT
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Priority This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior application, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or divisional. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/02/2025 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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. Instant Application (US19/031743) US12301873 Claim 9: A system comprising: a memory configurable to store data for a picture; and an encoder coupled to the memory and configurable to: divide the picture into a plurality of coding tree blocks (CTBs);partition the picture into a plurality of slices, wherein each slice in the plurality of slices includes a respective subset of CTBs of the plurality of CTBs; constrain a number of the plurality of slices based on a maximum sample rate; and encode each subset of CTBs within the respective slice into a bit stream. Claim 1: A system comprising: a receiver configured to receive a bitstream; and a processor coupled to the receiver and configured to decode the bitstream to produce a picture, wherein a number of slice segments in the picture is less than or equal to a minimum value of a first value and a second value, wherein the first value is related to a ratio of a maximum luma sample rate and a maximum luma picture size, and wherein the second value is related to a maximum number of slices per picture. Claims 9-28 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US12301873. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to divide the picture into coding tree blocks. Additionally, the instant claims are reciting the encoder side function of the same system as the identified US patent. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALHA M NAWAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5439. The examiner can normally be reached Flex, M-R 6:30am-3:30pm; F 8:30am-12:30pm. 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, Joe G Ustaris can be reached at 571-272-7383. 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. /TALHA M NAWAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 18, 2025
Application Filed
May 27, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12739391
REFERENCE PICTURE RESAMPLING (RPR) BASED SUPER-RESOLUTION WITH WAVELET DECOMPOSITION
1y 5m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12732622
Method and Apparatus for Cross Component Linear Model for Inter Prediction in Video Coding System
2y 2m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12732617
METHODS AND APPARATUSES FOR PREDICTION REFINEMENT WITH OPTICAL FLOW
2y 2m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12723861
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR MEASURING DEPTH OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL OBJECT
3y 5m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12726596
Wearable Smartview Imaging Apparatus With Camera and LCD Functions
2y 8m to grant Granted Sep 01, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
89%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (-0.8%)
2y 2m (~5m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 632 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