Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/876,639

TEMPLATE MATCHING PREDICTION WITH SUB-SAMPLING

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 18, 2024
Examiner
LEE, Y YOUNG
Art Unit
2485
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Interdigital Ce Patent Holdings SAS
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
48%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
73%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 48% of resolved cases
48%
Career Allow Rate
200 granted / 418 resolved
-10.2% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
431
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.7%
-32.3% vs TC avg
§103
35.0%
-5.0% vs TC avg
§102
37.5%
-2.5% vs TC avg
§112
9.4%
-30.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 418 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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 10, 22-27, 30, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Richardson (Video Codec Design). Regarding claims 1 and 22, Richardson discloses a method for decoding video data (e.g. CODEC), the method comprising determining that sub-sampled template (e.g. block) matching prediction TMP (e.g. ME and MC) is enabled for a current block (e.g. Fig. 6.1); determining a search area for performing TMP (e.g. Fig. 6.14); determining, based on the search area (e.g. levels 1 and 2), a sub-sampled search area for performing the sub-sampled TMP (e.g. Fig. 6.14); performing the sub-sampled TMP on the sub-sampled search area to determine a candidate prediction block (e.g. ¶ 6.4.6) for the current block; and decoding the current block based on the candidate prediction block (e.g. Fig. 6.1). Regarding claims 2 and 23, Richardson discloses wherein the method further comprises identifying a refinement search area around the candidate prediction block for performing a refinement TMP (e.g. candidate positions), the refinement search area being smaller than the search area (¶ 6.2.2); and performing the refinement TMP on the refinement search area to determine a refined prediction block for the current block (e.g. Fig. 6.14), wherein decoding the current block based on the candidate prediction block comprises decoding the current block based on the refined prediction block (e.g. Fig. 6.4). Regarding claims 3 and 24, Richardson discloses wherein determining the sub-sampled search area comprises determining the sub-sampled search area based on a sub-sampling factor having a value of N (e.g. factors based on power of 2), and wherein the sub-sampled search area comprises every Nth pixel of the search area (e.g. Fig. 6.14). Regarding claims 4 and 25, Richardson discloses wherein determining the sub-sampled search area comprises determining the sub-sampled search area based on a sub-sampling factor (e.g. factors based on power of 2), and wherein the method further comprises identifying, based on the candidate prediction block for the current block, a refinement search area for performing a refinement TMP (e.g. Fig. 6.14); determining a refinement sub-sampling factor (e.g. factor based on power of 2) associated with the refinement TMP, wherein the refinement sub-sampling factor is less than the sub-sampling factor (e.g. 2 vs. 4, 8, 16, etc.); determining a sub-sampled refinement search area, from the refinement search area, based on the refinement sub-sampling factor (e.g. Fig. 6.14); and performing the refinement TMP on the sub-sampled refinement search area to determine a refined prediction block for the current block (e.g. ¶ 6.4.6), wherein decoding the current block based on the candidate prediction block comprises decoding the current block based on the refined prediction block (e.g. CODEC). Regarding claims 5 and 26, Richardson discloses wherein determining that sub-sampled TMP is enabled for the current block comprises receiving a sub-sampling indication configured to indicate whether sub-sampled TMP is enabled for the current block (e.g. ¶ 6.2.1); and determining that sub-sampled TMP is enabled for the current block based on the sub-sampling indication (e.g. Fig. 6.1). Regarding claims 6 and 27, Richardson discloses wherein the method further comprises receiving an indication of a sub-sampling factor (e.g. factors based on power of 2), wherein determining the sub-sampled search area comprises determining the sub-sampled search area based on the sub-sampling factor (e.g. Fig. 6.14), and wherein the sub-sampled TMP is associated with intra template matching prediction (IntraTMP). Regarding claims 9 and 30, Richardson discloses wherein determining the sub-sampled search area comprises determining the sub-sampled search area based on a sub-sampling factor N (e.g. factors based on power of 2), wherein the sub-sampled search area comprises every Nth pixel of the search area (e.g. Fig. 6.14), and the method further comprises identifying, based on the candidate prediction block for the current block (e.g. Fig. 6.14), a refinement search area for performing a refinement TMP; determining a sub-sampled refinement search area, from the refinement search area based on a refinement sub-sampling factor (e.g. level 1 and level 2), wherein the refinement sub-sampling factor is N/2, and the sub-sampled refinement search area comprises every N/2th pixel of the refinement search area; and performing the refinement TMP on the sub-sampled refinement search area to determine a refined prediction block for the current block (e.g. factors based on power of 2), wherein decoding the current block based on the candidate prediction block comprises decoding the current block based on the refined prediction block (e.g. CODEC). Regarding claims 10 and 31, Richardson discloses wherein performing the sub-sampled TMP on the sub-sampled search area comprises receiving a configuration parameter, wherein the configuration parameter comprises one or more of a template size associated with TMP; a search range factor (e.g. factors based on power of 2) associated with TMP; a minimum block size to which TMP may be applied; a maximum block size to which TMP may be applied; the search area associated with TMP; a slice type to which the sub-sampled TMP is applied (e.g. ¶ 6.2.1); a sub-sampling factor (e.g. factors based on power of 2), wherein determining the sub-sampled search area comprises determining the sub-sampled search area based on the sub-sampling factor (e.g. Fig. 6.14); a first indication of whether to refine the sub-sampled TMP; or a second indication of whether to perform a hierarchical template matching search (e.g. levels 1 and 2); and performing the sub-sampled TMP on the sub-sampled search area based at least on the configuration parameter (e.g. Fig. 6.14). 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 7, 8, 28, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson in view of Seregin et al (exploration experiment on enhanced compression beyond VVC capability). Although Richardson discloses identifying a refinement search area around the candidate prediction block (e.g. Fig. 6.14), the refinement search area being smaller than the search area (e.g. level 1); and performing the refinement TMP on the refinement search area to determine a refined prediction block for the current block, it is noted Richardson differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose receiving an indication in the decoder as specified in claims 8, 9, 28, and 29. Seregin et al however, teaches the concept of such well-known receiving a refinement TMP indication configured to indicate whether refinement TMP is enabled for the current block (e.g. ¶ 5.1.1); and based on the refinement TMP indication indicating that refinement TMP is enabled for the current block (e.g. ¶ 5.2.3), wherein decoding the current block based on the candidate prediction block comprises decoding the current block based on the refined prediction block (e.g. p. 3-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having both the references of Richardson and Seregin et al before him/her, to incorporate the well known intra TMP decoding technique as taught by Seregin et al in the decoding method of Richardson in order to efficiently decoding the current block based on the candidate prediction block. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat. 12549716 discloses Intra Prediction Method And Device US Pat 12549714 discloses Video Encoding/decoding Method And Apparatus US Pat 12549717 discloses Intra Prediction Method And Device Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7334. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11 - 7. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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. /Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 18, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604005
VIDEO DECODING METHOD, VIDEO ENCODING METHOD, AND VIDEO DECODER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597255
SWIMMING POOLS AND SPAS WITH POOL VISION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587641
SELF-GUIDED INTRA INTERPOLATION FILTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587265
BACKHAUL LINK FOR A HIGH ALTITUDE PLATFORM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587683
PACKING DISPLACEMENT COMPONENT SAMPLE IN THE DISPLACEMENT VIDEO FRAME FOR DYNAMIC MESH CODING
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
48%
Grant Probability
73%
With Interview (+25.5%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 418 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