Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/064,135

Slicing And Tiling In Video Coding

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Feb 26, 2025
Examiner
BRANIFF, CHRISTOPHER
Art Unit
2484
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
544 granted / 637 resolved
+27.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
665
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.1%
-35.9% vs TC avg
§103
55.3%
+15.3% vs TC avg
§102
16.3%
-23.7% vs TC avg
§112
7.7%
-32.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 637 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . 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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,531 in view of Wang (US 2013/0114735 A1, already of record, referred to herein as “Wang”). Claim 1 of Instant Application A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer instructions for decoding a bitstream, that when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform steps of: receiving a bitstream including a video coding layer (VCL) network abstraction layer (NAL) unit containing a slice of picture data divided into a plurality of tiles; determining a number of entry points as one less than a number of the tiles in the slice, wherein the number of entry points is not explicitly signaled in the bitstream and is derived based on the number of tiles in the slice; obtaining entry point offsets for the tiles based on the number of entry points; and decoding a picture based on the entry point offsets. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,531 A method implemented by a decoder, the method comprising: receiving a bitstream including a video coding layer (VCL) network abstraction layer (NAL) unit containing a slice of picture data divided into a plurality of tiles; determining a number of entry points as one less than a number of the tiles in the slice, wherein the number of entry points is not explicitly signaled in the bitstream and is derived based on the number of tiles in the slice; obtaining entry point offsets for the tiles based on the number of entry points; and decoding a picture based on the entry point offsets. Table 1. Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,531 discloses many of the same limitations as shown in Table 1. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,531 does not explicitly disclose implementation via a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer instructions for decoding a bitstream… executed by one or more processors. However, Wang discloses disclose implementation via a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer instructions for decoding a bitstream… executed by one or more processors (Wang: paragraphs [0028] – [0029], disclosing encoding and decoding of video content; paragraphs [0231] – [0232], disclosing implementation via computer-readable medium and associated processors). At the time the application was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the computer-readable medium implementation of Wang with the decoding method of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,223. One would have been motivated to modify claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,223 in this manner in order to better implement coding methods in a variety of devices (Wang: paragraph [0234]). Regarding claims 2-8, claims 2-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,223 in view of Wang disclose the same or similar limitations and are likewise rejected. Claim 9 of Instant Application An encoder comprising: one or more processors configured to: partition a picture into at least one slice and partitioning the at least one slice into a plurality of tiles; encode the slice into a bitstream in a video coding layer (VCL) network abstraction layer (NAL) unit; encode a number of the tiles in the slice in the bitstream; and encode entry point offsets for the tiles in the bitstream, wherein a number of entry points is not explicitly signaled in the bitstream and is derived based on the number of tiles in the slice; and a transmitter coupled to the one or more processors and configured to transmit the bitstream without the number of entry point offsets to support decoding the tiles according to an inference that the number of entry point offsets is one less than the number of the tiles in the slice. Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,531 A method implemented by an encoder, the method comprising: partitioning a picture into at least one slice and partitioning the at least one slice into a plurality of tiles; encoding the slice into a bitstream in a video coding layer (VCL) network abstraction layer (NAL) unit; encoding a number of the tiles in the slice in the bitstream; encoding entry point offsets for the tiles in the bitstream, wherein a number of entry points is not explicitly signaled in the bitstream and is derived based on the number of tiles in the slice; and transmitting the bitstream without the number of entry point offsets to support decoding the tiles according to an inference that the number of entry point offsets is one less than the number of the tiles in the slice. Table 2. Regarding claim 9, claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,531 discloses many of the same limitations as shown in Table 2. Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,531does not explicitly disclose implementation via an encoder comprising one or more processors. However, Wang discloses implementation via an encoder comprising one or more processors (Wang: paragraphs [0028] – [0029], disclosing encoding and decoding of video content; paragraphs [0045] – [0053], disclosing implementation via a video encoder and associated processors). At the time the application was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the encoder implementation of Wang with the encoding method of claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,531. One would have been motivated to modify claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,531 in this manner in order to better implement coding methods in a variety of devices (Wang: paragraph [0234]). Regarding claims 10-15, claims 10-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,531 in view of Wang disclose the same or similar limitations and are likewise rejected. Claim 16 of Instant Application A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream that, when parsed by a coding device, is used by the coding device to generate a video, the bitstream comprising: a picture partitioned into a slice, wherein the slice is partitioned into a plurality of tiles, and wherein the slice is included in a video coding layer (VCL) network abstraction layer (NAL) unit; a number of the tiles in the slice; and entry point offsets for the tiles in the bitstream, wherein a number of entry points is not explicitly signaled in the bitstream and is derivable based on the number of tiles in the slice, wherein the bitstream is configured to be transmitted without the number of entry point offsets to support decoding the tiles according to an inference that the number of entry point offsets is one less than the number of the tiles in the slice. Claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,531 A video coding device comprising: a receiver configured to receive a bitstream including a video coding layer (VCL) network abstraction layer (NAL) unit containing a slice of picture data divided into a plurality of tiles; and a processor configured to: determine a number of entry points as one less than a number of the tiles in the slice, wherein the number of entry points is not explicitly signaled in the bitstream and is derived based on the number of tiles in the slice; obtain entry point offsets for the tiles based on the number of entry points; and decode a picture based on the entry point offsets. Table 3. Regarding claim 16, claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,531 discloses many of the same limitations as shown in Table 3. Claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,531 does not explicitly disclose implementation via a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream that, when parsed by a coding device, is used by the coding device to generate a video. However, Wang discloses disclose implementation via a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream that, when parsed by a coding device, is used by the coding device to generate a video (Wang: paragraphs [0028] – [0031], disclosing encoding and decoding of video content associated with a bitstream; paragraphs [0231] – [0232], disclosing implementation via computer-readable medium and associated processors). At the time the application was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the computer-readable medium implementation of Wang with the decoding method of claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,531. One would have been motivated to modify claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,531 in this manner in order to better implement coding methods in a variety of devices (Wang: paragraph [0234]). Regarding claims 17-20, claims 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,531 in view of Wang disclose the same or similar limitations and are likewise rejected. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Braniff whose telephone number is (571) 270-5009. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM to 4PM. 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, Thai Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7382. 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. CHRISTOPHER T. BRANIFF Primary Examiner Art Unit 2484 /CHRISTOPHER BRANIFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 26, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598279
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROCESSING FRAME SEQUENCE AND SYSTEM FOR TREATING VISUAL DYSFUNCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593067
PREDICTIVE CODING OF TEXTURE COORDINATES FOR POLYGON MESH COMPRESSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587627
METHODS AND SYSTEM OF MULTIVIEW VIDEO RENDERING, PREPARING A MULTIVIEW CACHE, AND REAL-TIME MULTIVIEW VIDEO CONVERSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586257
METHOD FOR ENCODING AND DECODING A 3D POINT CLOUD, ENCODER, DECODER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581115
GROUPING OF DUPLICATE VERTICES IN POSITION COMPRESSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
85%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+10.2%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 637 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