Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/805,349

SIGNALING FOR BLOCK PARTITIONING

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 14, 2024
Examiner
ANYIKIRE, CHIKAODILI E
Art Unit
2487
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Tencent America LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
779 granted / 1042 resolved
+16.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
1093
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.7%
-36.3% vs TC avg
§103
46.3%
+6.3% vs TC avg
§102
36.9%
-3.1% vs TC avg
§112
1.5%
-38.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1042 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al (US 2019/0394491, hereafter Han) in view of Lim et al (US 2019/0273922, hereafter Lim). As per claim 1, a method of video decoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving a video bitstream comprising a plurality of blocks and a first indicator associated with one or more partitioning types (¶ 52); parsing, from the video bitstream, the first indicator; when the first indicator has a first value, partitioning a first block of the plurality of blocks according to a first partitioning mode, including partitioning the first block into N equal-sized subblocks (¶ 72). However, Han does not explicitly teach wherein N = 2M and wherein M is a positive integer that is greater than 2; and decoding the first block in accordance with the partitioning. In the same field of endeavor, Lim teaches wherein N = 2M and wherein M is a positive integer that is greater than 2; and decoding the first block in accordance with the partitioning (¶ 632). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Han in view of Lim. The advantage is an improvement in video coding. As per claim 2, Han discloses the method of claim 1. However, Han does not explicitly teach wherein N is a fixed number. In the same field of endeavor, Lim teaches wherein N is a fixed number (¶632). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Han in view of Lim. The advantage is an improvement in video coding. As per claim 3, Han discloses the method of claim 1. However, Han does not explicitly teach further comprising parsing a value for N from the video bitstream. In the same field of endeavor, Lim teaches further comprising parsing a value for N from the video bitstream (¶ 632). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Han in view of Lim. The advantage is an improvement in video coding. As per claim 4, Han discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each subblock of the N equal-sized subblocks is square (¶ 72). As per claim 5, Han discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first block is a superblock (¶ 25). As per claim 6, Han discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first block is partitioned into the N equal-sized subblocks when the first block has a size that meets one or more criteria (¶ 81). As per claim 7, Han discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first partitioning mode is restricted to a predetermined number of uses with the first block (¶ 33). As per claim 8, Han discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first partitioning mode is applied to the first block in a recursive manner (¶ 26). As per claim 9, Han discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising parsing, from the video bitstream, a second indicator that indicates whether the first partitioning mode is enabled at a first partitioning point of the first block (¶ 52). As per claim 10, Han discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the second indicator is signaled in conjunction with a third indicator, the third indicator indicating that the first block is split into more than one subblock (¶ 52 and 72). As per claim 11, Han discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the second indicator is encoded using a first context, the first context being based on a comparison between a block size of the first block and one or more neighboring block sizes (¶ 129). As per claim 12, Han discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the first context is the same as a context for partitioning a block into 4 equal-sized subblocks (¶ 72). As per claim 13, Han discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the first block corresponds to a first picture, and wherein the first context is based on a partitioning flag of a second block of the plurality of blocks, the second block corresponding to another picture, different than the first picture (¶ 52 and 72). As per claim 14, Han discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the first block corresponds to a first color component, and wherein the first context is based on a partitioning flag of a second block of the plurality of blocks, the second block corresponding to a second color component, different than the first color component (¶ 66). As per claim 15, Han discloses the method of claim 1, wherein block partitioning context is based on whether the first partitioning mode has been applied to a parent partitioning node for the first block (¶ 75). As per claim 16, Han discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first indicator is signaled via a high-level syntax of the video bitstream (¶ 52). Regarding claim 17, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 17. Regarding claim 18, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 5 are applicable for claim 18. Regarding claim 19, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 4 are applicable for claim 19. Regarding claim 20, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 20. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4:30 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, 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. /CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 14, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 26, 2026
Interview Requested
Apr 03, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 03, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598307
CONSTRAINED OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES FOR GENERATING ENCODING LADDERS FOR VIDEO STREAMING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598290
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR INTER PREDICTION COMPENSATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597507
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR COMPRESSING AND/OR RECONSTRUCTING MEDICAL IMAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587676
COMBINED INTRA-PREDICTION MODE FOR BITSTREAM DECODER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585999
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CALIBRATING MACHINE LEARNING MODELS IN FULLY HOMOMORPHIC ENCRYPTION APPLICATIONS
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+11.5%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1042 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