Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 19/248,218

METHOD OF DECODING MOTION VECTOR

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jun 24, 2025
Priority
Nov 07, 2011 — RE 10-2011-0115218 +7 more
Examiner
NAWAZ, TALHA M
Art Unit
2482
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Gensquare LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 3m
Est. Remaining
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allowance Rate
544 granted / 610 resolved
+31.2% vs TC avg
Minimal -1% lift
Without
With
+-0.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
639
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.6%
-37.4% vs TC avg
§103
67.4%
+27.4% vs TC avg
§102
24.7%
-15.3% vs TC avg
§112
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 610 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an inter prediction module for/ a transform module for/ a quantization module for/ a scanning module for/ an entropy coding module for” in claim 1. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims including the resolution of any and all 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112 matters. The closest art of record is Oh et al. (US20170085902). However, the prior arts of record individually nor in combination do not explicitly disclose an above quantization parameter and a previous quantization parameter is set as the quantization parameter predictor if two or more quantization parameters among the left quantization parameter, the above quantization parameter and the previous quantization parameter are available, wherein an average of the above and previous quantization parameters is set as the quantization parameter predictor when the left quantization parameter does not exist, and wherein when a size of a transform unit is larger than 4x4, the quantized block is divided into multiple 4x4 subsets, the coefficient components of each subset are scanned respectively in a reverse direction according to a diagonal scan, and a scan pattern for scanning the multiple subsets is the same as the scan pattern used for scanning the coefficient components, when taken in the environment of the independent claims. 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

Jun 24, 2025
Application Filed
May 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12641240
ENCODER, A DECODER AND CORRESPONDING METHODS OF CHROMA INTRA MODE DERIVATION
1y 10m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12634435
METHOD, APPARATUS, AND MEDIUM FOR VIDEO PROCESSING
2y 4m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12627805
CODING FRAMEWORK FOR IMAGE-RELATED PARAMETERS
2y 1m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12593023
Electronic Device with Reliable Passthrough Video Fallback Capability and Hierarchical Failure Detection Scheme
2y 3m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587631
Motion Dependent Display
2y 2m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
88%
With Interview (-0.7%)
2y 2m (~1y 3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 610 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