Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 22, 2026
Application No. 19/142,406

VIDEO CODING APPARATUS AND DECODING APPARATUS

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Jun 23, 2025
Priority
Dec 26, 2022 — JP 2022-208358 +2 more
Examiner
GADOMSKI, STEFAN J
Art Unit
2485
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Sharp Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 3m
Est. Remaining
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allowance Rate
336 granted / 436 resolved
+19.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
465
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.4%
-32.6% vs TC avg
§103
47.0%
+7.0% vs TC avg
§102
13.9%
-26.1% vs TC avg
§112
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 436 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 Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 07/31/2026, with respect to the 102 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Examiner cannot concur amendments made to claim 9 address the issue raised by the 102 rejection. Amending the claim language to recite a computer using the computer readable medium to perform the SEI coding generating syntax would address the 102 issue. Therefore, the rejection is maintained. 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 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. US 2022/0329837 A1, hereafter Li. Regarding claim 9, the claim is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a bitstream including first and second syntax elements generated by acts. Significantly, the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium is NOT implementing any actual method; no instructions/steps are being executed. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data output from and/or generated by a series of acts. In other words, these claims are directed to a mere machine-readable medium storing data content (a bitstream generated by a method). Applicant therefore seeks to patent the storage of a bitstream in the abstract. In other words, the claim seeks to patent the content of the information (bitstream comprising video information) and not the process itself. Moreover, this stored bitstream does not impose any definitive physical organization on the data as there is no functional relationship between the bitstream and the storage medium. In conclusion, claim 9 is directed to mere data content (bitstream generated by a series of acts) stored as a bitstream on a computer-readable storage medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, the Examiner found and continues to find that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, this claim is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. Therefore, claim 9 is anticipated by Li, as Li discloses a computer readable medium storing a coded bitstream. Li discloses, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored therein a bitstream comprising video information generated by acts (non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method) [0023]. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-8 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or suggest the modification of a strength control value for setting a first variable to an integer value that is based on a syntax element in a neural network post-filter characteristics (NNPFC) SEI message. 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 STEFAN GADOMSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 12-8PM EST. 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, 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. STEFAN GADOMSKI Primary Examiner Art Unit 2485 /STEFAN GADOMSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 23, 2025
Application Filed
Jun 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102
Jul 31, 2026
Response Filed
Oct 05, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12771844
NEURAL NETWORK-BASED VIDEO COMPRESSION METHOD USING MOTION VECTOR FIELD COMPRESSION
1y 11m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12771873
DECODER SIDE DEPTH AND COLOR ALIGNMENT WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF METADATA FOR THE TRANSCODING OF VOLUMETRIC VIDEO
1y 11m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12764326
Block Vector Difference Signaling based on Validity Determination
1y 9m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12739494
ELECTRONIC SYSTEM WITH EYE PROTECTION BY DETECTING EYES AND FACE
1y 9m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12713050
SUB-PICTURES AND SUB-PICTURE SETS WITH LEVEL DERIVATION
2y 2m to grant Granted Aug 18, 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
77%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+7.0%)
2y 7m (~1y 3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 436 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