Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/234,065

INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD AND DEVICE, APPARATUS, AND STORAGE MEDIUM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 10, 2025
Priority
Jun 25, 2019 — continuation of PCTCN2019092723 +2 more
Examiner
RAHMAN, MOHAMMAD J
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 2m
Est. Remaining
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allowance Rate
706 granted / 889 resolved
+19.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
920
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
88.5%
+48.5% vs TC avg
§102
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
§112
1.6%
-38.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 889 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
CTNF 19/234,065 CTNF 90212 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 08-33 AIA 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and similar dependent claims are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Copending Application APP 18/449,206. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is anticipated by the Copending Application and is covered by the Application since the Application and the application are claiming common subject matter, below is a list of limitations that perform the same function, however, different terminology may be used in both sets to describe the limitations, as follows, Claim 1 is used as an example to analyze the common subject matter: Copending Application 18/449,206 Instant Application:-19/234,065 1. A method for processing information, applied to a decoder, comprising: obtaining a prediction mode, predicting a colour component of a coding block according to the prediction mode to obtain a prediction block, wherein the prediction mode is preset and is a Position-Dependent Prediction Combination (PDPC) mode, wherein the colour component of the coding block is predicted according to the prediction mode to obtain the prediction block when the following cases 1 to 4 are all met: in case 1, when the coding block is a luma block, and an Intra Sub-Partitions is not used; or, the coding block is a chroma block; in case 2, when the coding block is a luma block, and a 0th reference line is used for prediction; or, the coding block is a chroma block; wherein the 0th reference line refers to a reference line closest to the coding block; in case 3, the coding block is not coded by using a Block-based Delta Pulse Code Modulation (BDPCM); in case 4, any of following conditions is met: the predication mode is the planar prediction mode; the predication mode is the DC predication mode; the prediction mode is a horizontal prediction mode; the prediction mode is a vertical prediction mode; the prediction mode is a prediction mode with the index smaller than or equal to the second numerical value; or, the prediction mode is a prediction mode with the index greater than or equal to the third numerical value; refining the prediction block according to the prediction mode to obtain a refinement block. 1. A method for processing information, applied to a decoder, comprising: decoding a bitstream, obtaining a prediction mode, and predicting a colour component of a coding block by using the prediction mode to obtain a fourth prediction block, wherein the prediction mode applies a Position-Dependent Prediction Combination (PDPC), and the colour component is a chroma component; refining the fourth prediction block according to the prediction mode to obtain a fourth refinement block when the following cases 1 to 2 are all met:in case 1, the coding block is not coded by using a Block-based Delta Pulse Code Modulation (BDPCM);in case 2, any one of following conditions is met: the prediction mode is a horizontal prediction mode; the prediction mode is a vertical prediction mode; the prediction mode is a prediction mode with an index being a first numerical value among N preset spatial prediction modes; or the prediction mode is a prediction mode with an index being a fourth numerical value; decoding the bitstream and determining a sum of a residual block and the fourth refinement block to obtain a reconstructed block. As demonstrated, the claim of Copending Application 18/449,206 anticipate the features of the claim of instant application 19/234,065. Similar rejections can be presented for Applications, 19/236,771, and, 19/232,600. A nonstatutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope or filing of a terminal disclaimer. Examiner’s Note Claims 1-2 refer to "A method for processing information”, Claims 3-4 refer to "A method for processing information”, Claims 5-6 refer to "A video decoding apparatus”, Claims 7-8 refer to "A video encoding apparatus”, and Claim 9 refers to “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”. Claims 3-9 are similarly rejected in light of rejection of claims 1-2, any obvious combination of the rejection of claims 1-2, or the differences are obvious to the ordinary skill in the art. It is well known in the art that encoding and decoding are reverse processes of video coding method/system. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panusopone et al. (US 20240179305 A1), hereinafter Panusopone, in view of Chen et al. (“Algorithm description for Versatile Video Coding and Test Model 5, VTM 5, JVET, 14 th Meeting, Geneva, CH, 19-27 Mar 2019), hereinafter Chen . Regarding claim 1, Panusopone discloses a method for processing information, applied to a decoder, comprising (Abstract) : decoding a bitstream, obtaining a prediction mode, and predicting a colour component of a coding block by using the prediction mode, wherein the prediction mode applies a Position-Dependent Prediction Combination (PDPC) ([0079]-[0082]) . Panusopone discloses all the elements of claim 1 but Panusopone does not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section to obtain a fourth prediction block; and the colour component is a chroma component; refining the fourth prediction block according to the prediction mode to obtain a fourth refinement block when the following cases 1 to 2 are all met: in case 1, the coding block is not coded by using a Block-based Delta Pulse Code Modulation (BDPCM);in case 2, any one of following conditions is met: the prediction mode is a horizontal prediction mode; the prediction mode is a vertical prediction mode;t he prediction mode is a prediction mode with an index being a first numerical value among N preset spatial prediction modes; or the prediction mode is a prediction mode with an index being a fourth numerical value; decoding the bitstream and determining a sum of a residual block and the fourth refinement block to obtain a reconstructed block. However, Chen from the same or similar endeavor teaches to obtain a fourth prediction block ; and the colour component is a chroma component; refining the fourth prediction block according to the prediction mode to obtain a fourth refinement block when the following cases 1 to 2 are all met: in case 1, the coding block is not coded by using a Block-based Delta Pulse Code Modulation (BDPCM);in case 2, any one of following conditions is met: the prediction mode is a horizontal prediction mode; the prediction mode is a vertical prediction mode; the prediction mode is a prediction mode with an index being a first numerical value among N preset spatial prediction modes; or the prediction mode is a prediction mode with an index being a fourth numerical value; decoding the bitstream and determining a sum of a residual block and the fourth refinement block to obtain a reconstructed block (Section 3.1, Section 3.3.3 – Section 3.3.5, Fig. 1) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Panusopone to incorporate the teachings of Chen to improve coding performance (Chen, Abstract) . Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims. Regarding claim 2, Panusopone in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: performing a chroma prediction on a chroma value of the coding block according to the prediction mode to obtain the fourth prediction block (Panusopone, [0019], [0023]-[0027], [0036], Chen, Section 3.1, Section 3.3.3 – Section 3.3.5, Fig. 1) . Regarding claim 3-9, See Examiner’s Note. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD J RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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. /Mohammad J Rahman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487 Application/Control Number: 19/234,065 Page 2 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 19/234,065 Page 3 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 19/234,065 Page 4 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 19/234,065 Page 5 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 19/234,065 Page 7 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 19/234,065 Page 8 Art Unit: 2487
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 10, 2025
Application Filed
Oct 23, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12684134
IMAGE ENCODING/DECODING METHOD AND APPARATUS, AND RECORDING MEDIUM STORING BITSTREAM
2y 3m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12684120
MAPPING TABLE DERIVATION FOR FIXED FILTER SETS IN VIDEO CODING
2y 1m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12678117
THREE-DIMENSIONAL SCANNER AND SCANNING METHOD USING SAME
1y 10m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12676988
Recursive Intra Region Partitioning
2y 2m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12671849
COMPRESSION OF MULTIPLANE IMAGES
1y 10m to grant Granted Jun 30, 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
79%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+10.0%)
2y 3m (~1y 2m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 889 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