Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/704,640

VIDEO ENCODING AND DECODING USING REFERENCE PICTURE RESAMPLING

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 25, 2024
Examiner
UHL, LINDSAY JANE KILE
Art Unit
2481
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Interdigital Ce Patent Holdings SAS
OA Round
2 (Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
324 granted / 404 resolved
+22.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+8.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
442
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.7%
-36.3% vs TC avg
§103
65.4%
+25.4% vs TC avg
§102
8.7%
-31.3% vs TC avg
§112
10.3%
-29.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 404 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is in response to the application filed on October 27, 2025. Claims 13-24 are pending and are examined. 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 Amendment The amendments made to original claims 13-24 have been fully considered. Response to Argument Applicant's arguments and amendments received October 27, 2025 have been fully considered. With regard to 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that Sun discloses rescaling motion information of the current block, where the motion vector being resized originates from the current block of the current frame and fails to disclose obtaining a co-located motion vector candidate from the co-located reference picture at the rescaled position and rescaling the co-located motion vector candidate. In other words, Sun fails to disclose sourcing a motion vector candidate from the reference picture and rescaling the sourced motion vector candidate. This language corresponds to the newly amended language of claims 13, 15, 17, and 19. As such, these have been considered but they are directed to newly amended language, which is addressed below. See the rejection below for how new prior art reads on the newly amended language as well as the examiner's interpretation of the cited art in view of the presented claim set. Claim Interpretation Claims 13, 15, 17, and 19 recite “rescaling a position of the current block based on a scaling ratio…”. Applicant’s specification does not describe rescaling the physical location of the current block itself based on a scaling ratio. It describes 1) rescaling the physical location of the current block based on POC differences (see Applicant’s specification at 18:25-28) and 2) it describes rescaling the physical location/map of the reference block associated with (the co-located or temporal block associated with) the current block based on the scaling ratio (see Applicant’s specification at 13:26-30, 18:6-8 – Examiner notes that 18:6-8 states “the position in the map may be re-scaled accordingly” – in this sentence 2 maps are described “the map associated with the reference picture” and “current picture map”. It appears, based on sentence structure and based on the description in 13:26-30 that the map referred to by “the map” is “the map associated with the reference picture”). Accordingly, in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description and enablement requirements, the phrase “rescaling a position of the current block based on a scaling ratio…” is interpreted to refer to rescaling a position of the current block (namely the reference/tpmv/co-located block position associated with that current block) based on a scaling ratio. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claims 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0060712 (“Zhang”), which corresponds to priority applications filed in May of 2019 and 2020, in view of the level of skill in the art. With respect to claim 17, Zhang discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including An apparatus comprising a decoder for decoding picture data (see Figs. 12 and 25-26, ¶¶19, 167, 487-491, describing a video decoding apparatus for decoding picture data), the decoder being configured to, for a current block of a current picture: obtain, from a decoded pictures buffer comprising decoded pictures, a decoded picture comprising one or more reconstructed samples, one or more motion vectors, and a co-located reference picture having a size different than a size of the current picture (see Figs. 12, 23, item “Decoded picture buffer”, ¶167, showing and describing a system allowing for use of ARC with ATMVP and that the decoder obtains, from a DPB comprising previously decoded pictures, a previously decoded picture containing previously decoded/reconstructed samples, motion vectors, and a reference picture of a different size than the current picture); rescale a position of the current block based on a scaling ratio corresponding to a ratio between the size of the current picture and the size of the co-located reference picture (see claim construction above and Fig. 23, ¶¶252-253, 324, 428-435, showing and describing that when ARC and ATMVP are used together and the size of the current picture and size/resolution of the co-located reference picture are different, the position, e.g., the top-left position, of the collocated/corresponding block associated with the current block may be rescaled based on a scaling ratio between the width/height/size of the current picture and the width/height/size of the reference picture); obtain a co-located motion vector candidate from the co-located reference picture at the rescaled position (see citations and arguments with respect to element above and ¶¶437, 451, describing that this rescaled position (e.g., (x’, y’)) is determined to be the co-located/collocated TMVP/ATMVP/temporal motion vector candidate block, and a motion vector therefrom, i.e., from the co-located reference picture); rescale the co-located motion vector candidate based on the scaling ratio (see citations and arguments with respect to elements above and ¶¶243, 254, 444-451, describing that the co-located/temporal MV may be rescaled based on the scaling ratio); and perform co-located motion-compensated prediction for the current block based on the rescaled motion vector candidate and one or more samples of the co-located reference picture (see citations and arguments with respect to elements above, including ¶¶167, 254, 324, and ¶43, Heading before ¶423, describing that the decoder may combine ATMVP and ARC to use the above described rescaled motion vector candidate and samples of the co-located reference picture to perform motion compensation prediction for the current block); and decode picture data of the current block (see citations and arguments with respect to preamble above, describing decoding picture data of the current block). Zhang does not specifically describe the co-located motion vector as a “candidate”. However, it does detail a system that fetches/stores and may one of multiple mvs/sets of motion information (see ¶¶14, 167, 323 and heading prior, 437, 542). In other words, although Zhang does not use this term, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, the determined co-located motion vectors would have been one of multiple potential motion vectors for use, i.e., they would have been understood to be “candidates”. Accordingly, Zhang in view of the level of skill in the art discloses each and every element of independent claim 17. With respect to claim 18, Zhang discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Zhang in view of the level of skill in the art discloses each and every element of independent claim 17. Zhang additionally discloses: the decoder being further configured to rescale the co-located motion vector candidate according to a scaling value, wherein the scaling value is based on a difference between a picture order count of the current picture and a picture order count of the reference picture (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 17 above, describing that that when ARC and TMVP/ATMVP are combined, the co-located motion vector is a candidate, and ¶167, describing that in ARC the motion vector candidates may be scaled based on picture order count difference). The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 17 also apply to claim 18. With respect to claim 19, Zhang discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Zhang in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of independent claim 17. Zhang additionally discloses: An apparatus comprising an encoder for encoding picture data (see Figs. 11 and 25-26, ¶¶167, 487-491, describing a video decoding apparatus for decoding picture data), the encoder being configured to, for a current block of a current picture: obtain, from a decoded pictures buffer comprising decoded pictures, a decoded picture comprising one or more reconstructed samples, one or more motion vectors, and a co-located reference picture having a size different than a size of the current picture (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 17 above and preamble above, describing that the motion prediction embodiments described may be performed in either the encoder or the decoder); rescale a position of the current block based on a scaling ratio corresponding to a ratio between the size of the current picture and the size of the co-located reference picture (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 17 above and preamble above, describing that the motion prediction embodiments described may be performed in either the encoder or the decoder); obtain a co-located motion vector candidate from the co-located reference picture at the rescaled position (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 17 above and preamble above, describing that the motion prediction embodiments described may be performed in either the encoder or the decoder); rescale the co-located motion vector candidate based on the scaling ratio (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 17 above and preamble above, describing that the motion prediction embodiments described may be performed in either the encoder or the decoder); and perform co-located motion-compensated prediction for the current block based on the rescaled motion vector candidate and one or more samples of the co-located reference picture (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 17 above and preamble above, describing that the motion prediction embodiments described may be performed in either the encoder or the decoder); and encode picture data of the current block (see preamble above, describing that the embodiments may be used by an encoder to encode picture data of the current block). The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 17 also apply to claim 19. With respect to claim 20, Zhang discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Zhang in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of independent claim 19. Zhang additionally discloses: the encoder being further configured to rescale the co-located motion vector candidate according to a scaling value, wherein the scaling value is based on a difference between a picture order count of the current picture and a picture order count of the reference picture (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 18 and 19 above). The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 17 also apply to claim 20. With respect to claim 13, claim 13 recites the elements of claim 17 in method form rather than apparatus form. Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 17 also applies to claim 13. With respect to claim 14, claim 14 recites the elements of claim 18 in method form rather than apparatus form. Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 18 also applies to claim 14. With respect to claim 15, claim 15 recites the elements of claim 19 in method form rather than apparatus form. Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 19 also applies to claim 15. With respect to claim 16, claim 16 recites the elements of claim 20 in method form rather than apparatus form. Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 20 also applies to claim 16. With respect to claim 21, claim 21 recites the method of claim 13 as performed by a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored instructions that cause the processor to perform the method. Zhang discloses such a processor and storage medium storing software/instructions to perform the method (see ¶¶595-598). Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 13/17 also apply to claim 21. With respect to claim 22, claim 22 recites the method of claim 14 as performed by a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored instructions that cause the processor to perform the method. Zhang discloses such a processor and storage medium storing instructions to perform the method (see ¶¶595-598). Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 14/18 also apply to claim 22. With respect to claim 23, claim 23 recites the method of claim 15 as performed by a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored instructions that cause the processor to perform the method. Zhang discloses such a processor and storage medium storing instructions to perform the method (see ¶¶595-598). Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claims 15/19 also apply to claim 23. With respect to claim 24, claim 24 recites the method of claim 16 as performed by a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored instructions that cause the processor to perform the method. Zhang discloses such a processor and storage medium storing instructions to perform the method (see ¶¶595-598). Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 16/20 also apply to claim 24. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LINDSAY JANE KILE UHL whose telephone number is (571)270-0337. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM. 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, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. 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. LINDSAY J UHL Primary Examiner Art Unit 2481 /LINDSAY J UHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 25, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 27, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 21, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604000
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PARTITION-BASED PREDICTION MODE REORDERING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604030
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROCESSING VIDEO SIGNAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598329
SYNTAX DESIGN METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PERFORMING CODING BY USING SYNTAX
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593032
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR PROCESSING VIDEO SIGNAL BY USING INTER PREDICTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587636
GEOMETRIC PARTITION MODE WITH MOTION VECTOR REFINEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
80%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+8.7%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 404 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