Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/855,224

IMPLICIT INTRA MODE FOR COMBINED INTER MERGE/INTRA PREDICTION AND GEOMETRIC PARTITIONING MODE INTRA/INTER PREDICTION

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 08, 2024
Examiner
HOSSAIN, FARZANA E
Art Unit
2482
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Interdigital Ce Patent Holdings SAS
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
421 granted / 646 resolved
+7.2% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
669
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.5%
-32.5% vs TC avg
§103
40.7%
+0.7% vs TC avg
§102
17.6%
-22.4% vs TC avg
§112
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 646 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 32-33, 38-40, 44-45, 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al (US 2025/0063157 and hereafter referred to as “Chen”). Regarding 32, Chen discloses a device for video decoding, comprising: a processor (Page 15, paragraph 0200, Page 9, paragraph 0114, Page 12-13, paragraph 0161) configured to: obtain a video block comprising an intra-prediction portion and an inter-prediction portion (Page 11, paragraph 0148 – geometric partitioning mode can have both intra and inter for partitions and they are determined by flag); obtain a reference block in a reference picture of the video block (Page 12, paragraph 0160); determine an intra-prediction mode for the intra-prediction portion of the video block based on one or more intra-prediction modes associated with the reference block (Page 12, paragraph 0160); predict the intra-prediction portion of the video block using the intra-prediction mode (Page 11, paragraph 0148); predict the inter-prediction portion using an inter-prediction mode (Page 11, paragraph 0148); and decode the video block based on the intra-prediction portion and the inter-prediction portion of the video block (Figure 8, Page 12-13, paragraph 0161). Regarding Claim 39, Chen discloses a device for video encoding, comprising: a processor (Page 15, paragraph 0200, Page 9, paragraph 0114, Page 12-13, paragraph 0161) configured to: obtain a video block comprising an intra-prediction portion and an inter-prediction portion (Page 11, paragraph 0148 – geometric partitioning mode can have both intra and inter for partitions and they are determined by flag); obtain a reference block in a reference picture of the video block (Page 12, paragraph 0160); determine an intra-prediction mode for the intra-prediction portion of the video block based on one or more intra-prediction modes associated with the reference block (Page 12, paragraph 0160); predict the intra-prediction portion of the video block using the intra-prediction mode (Page 11, paragraph 0148); predict the inter-prediction portion using an inter-prediction mode (Page 11, paragraph 0148); and encode the video block based on the intra-prediction portion and the inter-prediction portion of the video block (Figure 7, Page 12-13, paragraph 0161). Regarding 44, Chen discloses a method for video decoding, comprising: obtaining a video block comprising an intra-prediction portion and an inter-prediction portion (Page 11, paragraph 0148 – geometric partitioning mode can have both intra and inter for partitions and they are determined by flag); obtaining a reference block in a reference picture of the video block (Page 12, paragraph 0160); determining an intra-prediction mode for the intra-prediction portion of the video block based on one or more intra-prediction modes associated with the reference block (Page 12, paragraph 0160); predicting the intra-prediction portion of the video block using the intra-prediction mode (Page 11, paragraph 0148); predicting the inter-prediction portion using an inter-prediction mode (Page 11, paragraph 0148); and decoding the video block based on the intra-prediction portion and the inter-prediction portion of the video block (Figure 8, Page 12-13, paragraph 0161). Regarding Claim 48, Chen discloses a method for video encoding, comprising: obtaining a video block comprising an intra-prediction portion and an inter-prediction portion (Page 11, paragraph 0148 – geometric partitioning mode can have both intra and inter for partitions and they are determined by flag); obtaining a reference block in a reference picture of the video block (Page 12, paragraph 0160); determining an intra-prediction mode for the intra-prediction portion of the video block based on one or more intra-prediction modes associated with the reference block (Page 12, paragraph 0160); predicting the intra-prediction portion of the video block using the intra-prediction mode (Page 11, paragraph 0148); predicting the inter-prediction portion using an inter-prediction mode (Page 11, paragraph 0148); and encoding the video block based on the intra-prediction portion and the inter-prediction portion of the video block (Figure 7, Page 12-13, paragraph 0161). Regarding Claim 33, 40, 45 and 49, Chen discloses all the limitations of Claims 32, 39, 44 and 48 respectively. Chen discloses wherein the processor is further configured to determine that geometric partitioning mode (GPM) is enabled for the video block, and wherein the intra-prediction portion and the inter-prediction portion are associated with GPM (Page 11, paragraph 0148). Regarding Claim 38, Chen discloses all the limitations of Claims 32. Chen discloses wherein the processor is further configured to receive an indication associated with an intra prediction of the video block, wherein the indication indicates that the intra- prediction mode for the intra-prediction portion of the video block is to be determined based on the one or more intra-prediction modes associated with the reference block, and wherein the intra-prediction mode for the intra-prediction portion of the video block is determined based on the indication (Page 11, paragraph 0148). 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. 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. Claims 36 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Lim et al (US 2022/0166998 and hereafter referred to as “Lim”). Regarding Claim 36 and 43, Chen discloses all the limitations of Claims 32 and 39 respectively. Chen discloses wherein the one or more intra-prediction modes associated with the reference block comprises an intra- prediction mode associated with a reference block (paragraph 0160). Chen discloses reference samples but does not explicitly disclose the reference block comprises a reference sample, and wherein the one or more intra-prediction modes associated with the reference block comprises an intra- prediction mode associated with the reference sample. Lim discloses the reference block comprises a reference sample, and wherein the one or more intra-prediction modes associated with the reference block comprises an intra- prediction mode associated with the reference sample (paragraph 0782, 00227, 0260). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chen to include the missing limitation as taught by Lim in order to improved coding efficiency (paragraph 0005) as disclosed by Lim. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 34-35, 37, 41-42, 46-47, 50-51 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZANA HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5943. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 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, Christopher Kelley can be reached at 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 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. /FARZANA HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482 January 23, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 08, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593097
METHOD FOR DECODING A DATA STREAM, ASSOCIATED DEVICE AND ASSOCIATED DATA STREAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584730
OIL RIG DRILL PIPE AND TUBING TALLY SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12568233
SCALABLE ENCODING AND DECODING METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12549800
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING CONTENT TO A MEDIA PLAYING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12545188
CAMERA ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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
65%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+18.5%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 646 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