Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/181,858

Method and Apparatus of Overlapped Block Motion Compensation in Video Coding System

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 10, 2023
Examiner
SENFI, BEHROOZ M
Art Unit
2482
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
MediaTek Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
858 granted / 1039 resolved
+24.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
1059
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.4%
-32.6% vs TC avg
§103
42.6%
+2.6% vs TC avg
§102
21.1%
-18.9% vs TC avg
§112
9.3%
-30.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1039 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/13/2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. Claims 1-3,5-7,9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (TW 202007167) in view of Drugeon et al. (TW 1897471). Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a method of video coding, the method comprising; receiving input data associated with a current block (e.g., disclosure of the reference, indicating; input data related to a current block is received), wherein the input data comprise pixel data for the current block to be encoded at an encoder side or coded data associated with the current block to be decoded at a decoder side (e.g., disclosure of the reference, indicating; wherein the input data corresponds to pixel data to be encoded on an encoder side or encoded data to be decoded on a decoder side), determining an inter prediction tool from a set of inter-prediction coding tools for the current block (e.g., abstract, also the entire disclosure is directed to using an Inter coding tool with OBMC). Although Lin, throughout the disclosure (e.g., disclosure of the invention dictates; in order to handle CU boundaries in a unified manner, OBMC is executed at the sub-block level for all MC block boundaries, where the sub-block size is set equal to 4x4, as shown in FIG. 3A, and further indicates; decide whether to apply OBMC based on the information of one or more adjacent blocks. The information may be any characteristics of adjacent blocks, such as size, shape, width, height, both width and height, inter-frame direction (i.e., unidirectional prediction or bidirectional prediction), or any combination of the above characteristics, thus consider equivalent to the limitation as claimed), and applying subblock OBMC to a subblock boundary between a neighboring subblock and a current subblock of the current block according to the OBMC subblock size (e.g., figs. 3a-5b, OBMC is executed at the sub-block level for all MC block boundaries where the sub-block size is set equal to 4x4). However, for further clarification, Drugeon in the same field of endeavor and throughout the disclosure teaches (e.g., present disclosure can improve coding efficiency, simplify and speed up coding/decoding processes, and efficiently select appropriate components/actions used in coding and decoding, such as appropriate filters, block sizes, motion vectors, reference images, and reference sizes, and further indicates, [Motion Compensation > BIO/OBMC] Motion compensation involves generating and correcting a predicted image. Examples of these modes are BIO and OBMC, described below, and further indicates that, [Motion Compensation > OBMC] It is also possible to generate an inter-prediction signal using not only the motion information of the current block obtained through motion search but also the motion information of neighboring blocks. Specifically, a prediction signal based on the motion information obtained through motion search (within the reference image) and a prediction signal based on the motion information of neighboring blocks (within the current image) are weighted and added together to generate an inter-prediction signal on a sub-block basis within the current block. This type of inter-prediction (motion compensation) is sometimes referred to as OBMC (overlapped block motion compensation), In OBMC mode, information indicating the size of the subblock used for OBMC (e.g., OBMC block size) can also be signaled, figs. 8-10, OBMC in CU units in this specification refers to OBMC for subblocks adjacent to the current CU boundary, and may be described as CU boundary subblock OBMC. OBMC in subblock units refers to OBMC for subblocks within the current CU (subblocks not adjacent to the CU boundary). In view of thew above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Lin, in accordance with the teaching of Drugeon, in order to improve coding efficiency, simplify and speed up coding/decoding processes, as suggested by the reference. Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lin and Drugeon teach the method of claim 1, wherein the OBMC subblock size is dependent on a smallest processing unit associated with the inter prediction tool selected for the current block (e.g., figs. 3a-5b, indication of, OBMC is executed at the sub-block level for all MC block boundaries, where the sub-block size is set equal to 4x4, also use of OBMC with inter prediction, throughout the disclosure of Lin; also, signaling information indicating the size of the subblock used for OBMC (e.g., OBMC block size) in Drugeon, discussed in claim 1 above). Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lin and Drugeon teach the method of claim 2, wherein the inter prediction tool selected for the current block corresponds to a DMVR mode (Decoder Side Motion Vector Refinement) (e.g., Lin, OBMC and DMVR mode disclosed throughout the disclosure; also figs. 31-31b, DMVR processing, in Drugeon). Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lin and Drugeon teach the method of claim 2, wherein the inter prediction tool selected for the current block corresponds to an affine mode (e.g., please see disclosure of Lin, and also, indication of, affine Model] Next, we will explain the affine model that derives motion vectors on a subblock basis based on the motion vectors of multiple neighboring blocks. This model is sometimes called the affine motion compensation prediction model, etc., in Drugeon). Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lin and Drugeon teach the method of claim 2, wherein the OBMC subblock size is set to 4x4 if the inter prediction tool selected for the current block corresponds to an affine mode (e.g., disclosure of Drugeon, [MV Derivation > Affine Mode] Figure 25B is a conceptual diagram illustrating an example of derivation of subblock-level motion vectors in an affine mode with three control points. In Figure 25B , the current block consists of 16 4x4 subblocks; and disclosure of Lin also covers the above limitation). Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lin and Drugeon teach the method of claim 2, wherein the inter prediction tool selected for the current block corresponds to an SbTMVP (Subblock-based Temporal Motion Vector Prediction) mode (e.g., mode is used for the current sub-block, a temporal motion vector prediction (sbTMVP) mode or an affine motion compensation prediction mode for the sub-block, disclosure of Lin). Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lin and Drugeon teach the method of claim 2, wherein the OBMC subblock size is set to 8x8 if the inter prediction tool selected for the current block corresponds to a DMVR mode (Decoder Side Motion Vector Refinement), and the OBMC subblock size is set to 4x4 if the inter prediction tool selected for the current block corresponds to an affine more or an SbTMVP (Subblock-based Temporal Motion Vector Prediction) mode (e.g., addressed in claim 6 above). Regarding claim 11, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 1 above, and has been addressed in claim 1 above. 6. Claims 4,8 and 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (TW 202007167) in view of Drugeon et al. (TW 1897471) further in view of Kim et al. (US 2025/0039400). Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lin and Drugeon teach the method of claim 2, including information indicating the size of the subblock used for OBMC, as discussed in claim 1. Lin fails to explicitly teach, the OBMC subblock size is set to 8x8 if the inter prediction tool selected for the current block corresponds to a DMVR mode (Decoder Side Motion Vector Refinement), and the OBMC subblock size is set to 4x4 if the inter prediction tool selected for the current block corresponds to an inter prediction tool other than the DMVR mode. However, Kim in the same field of endeavor (e.g., paragraphs 0037,0137,0155) teaches As another embodiment, since the DMVR mode has different pieces of motion information in the unit of 8x8, 8x4, 4x8, and 4x4 sub-blocks, when the current block is encoded in the MP-DMVR mode, the unit of a sub-block for sub-block OBMC processing may be configured to be the same as the MP-DMVR processing unit, thus is equivalent to the above limitation. In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Kim, into the overlapping block motion compensation system of Lin, in order to improve coding efficiency, as suggested by the reference. Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lin and Drugeon, as discussed in the above action, teach the method of claim 2, including the OBMC subblock size is set to 4x4 based on inter prediction tool selected for the current block. Lin, fails to explicitly teach, SbTMVP (Subblock-based Temporal Motion Vector Prediction) mode, and the OBMC subblock size is set to include size 8x8 if the inter prediction tool selected for the current block corresponds to an inter prediction tool other than the SbTMVP. However, Kim in the same field of endeavor (e.g., paragraphs 0137,0155) teaches the above claimed limitation. In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Kim, into the overlapping block motion compensation system of Lin, in order to improve coding efficiency, as suggested by the reference. Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lin and Drugeon teach the method of claim 2, including OBMC was applied to geometric segmentation (e.g., disclosure of Lin). For further clarification; Kim in the same field of endeavor (e.g., paragraphs 0015,0034,0086,0177,0180,0183) more clearly teaches the claimed, inter prediction tool selected for the current block corresponds to a GPM (Geometric Partition Mode). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to implement such known teaching. Contact Information 7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Behrooz Senfi, whose telephone number is (571)272-7339. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00. 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, Christopher Kelley can be reached on 571 272 7331. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571 -272-1000. /BEHROOZ M SENFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 10, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 31, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 05, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 17, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 13, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 23, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12581050
OPTICAL ASSEMBLIES FOR MACHINE VISION CALIBRATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574493
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568287
GENERATING THREE-DIMENSIONAL VIDEOS BASED ON TEXT USING MACHINE LEARNING MODELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12563170
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12556676
IMAGE SENSOR, CAMERA AND IMAGING SYSTEM WITH TWO OR MORE FOCUS PLANES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+10.1%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1039 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