Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/895,011

METHOD AND DEVICE FOR DERIVING INTRA MULTIPLE REFERENCE LINE (MRL) PREDICTION SYNTAX BY DERIVING BOUNDARY AREA OF ATLAS IMAGE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 24, 2024
Examiner
BRANIFF, CHRISTOPHER
Art Unit
2484
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Dong-A University Research Foundation For Industry-Academy Cooperation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
544 granted / 637 resolved
+27.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
665
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.1%
-35.9% vs TC avg
§103
55.3%
+15.3% vs TC avg
§102
16.3%
-23.7% vs TC avg
§112
7.7%
-32.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 637 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 . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on September 27, 2023 and an application filed in Korea on September 19, 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2023-0131151 application and the KR10-2024-0126930 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. An attempt to electronically retrieve these documents under priority document exchange failed, as noted in the failure status reports of February 27, 2025. 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. 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. Claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2023/0388544 A1, referred to herein as “Xu”) in view of Wang et al. (US 2021/0176493 A1, referred to herein as “Wang”). Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses: An image encoding method (Xu: Fig. 2, paragraph [0046], disclosing encoding of captured video), the method comprising: deriving an atlas boundary from a reference sample region of a current block (Xu: paragraph [0084], disclosing prediction of a sample region of a current block; Figs. 13-14, paragraphs [0017] – [0018], disclosing that 3D mesh segments may be used to generate a 2D atlas; Fig. 15, paragraph [0119], disclosing that an atlas boundary may be derived for the atlas); determining, in response to an existence of the atlas boundary, whether an index of a reference sample line having the atlas boundary… (Xu: paragraph [0084], disclosing that prediction of the current block is restricted to a nearest reference line or a set of candidate reference lines; paragraphs [0121] – [0122], disclosing that when a boundary vertex in 3D corresponds to multiple vertices in an atlas an index may be signaled to indicate a mapping function of the vertices); adaptively transmitting… a multiple reference line (MRL) syntax of the current block… based on the atlas boundary (Xu: paragraph [0084], disclosing multiple reference line prediction that uses a flag to signal which reference tier is chosen for an intra-directional mode; paragraph [0116], disclosing that the atlas boundary information may be predicted—e.g., using multiple reference line prediction). Xu does not explicitly disclose whether an index of a reference line sample is greater than a threshold value, transmitting a syntax according to whether the index of the reference sample line having the atlas boundary is greater than the threshold value, and a current block encoded by a changed binarization method. However, Wang discloses whether an index of a reference line sample is greater than a threshold value (Wang: Fig. 9, paragraphs [0190] – [0191], disclosing use of a reference line index for prediction; paragraph [0288], disclosing determining whether the reference line index is non-zero—e.g., greater than zero), transmitting a syntax according to whether the index of the reference sample line having the atlas boundary is greater than the threshold value (Wang: Fig. 9, paragraph [0191], disclosing that the reference line index is signaled—e.g., that a syntax is used; paragraph [0288], disclosing that when the reference line index is greater than zero a value of the index is signaled), and a current block encoded by a changed binarization method (Wang: paragraph [0142], disclosing encoding by a binarization method; paragraph [0485], disclosing that difference binarizations are used based on the reference line index). At the time the application was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the reference line index signaling of Wang in the image encoding method of Xu. One would have been motivated to modify Xu in this manner in order to increase the coding efficiency of intra prediction by using prediction based on employing multiple reference lines of a current block (Wang: paragraphs [0011] – [0013]). Regarding claim 5, Xu and Wang disclose: The method of Claim 1, wherein: the threshold value is determined by a pre-defined reference table (Wang: paragraph [0288], disclosing a reference table for signaling values of the reference line index when the reference line index value is greater than 0). The motivation for combining Xu and Wang has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above. Regarding claim 6, Xu and Wang disclose: The method of Claim 1, wherein: in response to the index of the reference sample line having the atlas boundary being less than or equal to the threshold value, the MRL syntax is not transmitted (Wang: paragraph [0288], disclosing that when the reference line index is zero, a value of the reference line index is not signaled). The motivation for combining Xu and Wang has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above. Regarding claim 7, Xu and Wang disclose: The method of Claim 1, wherein: in response to the index of the reference sample line having the atlas boundary being greater than the threshold value, the MRL syntax encoded by the changed binarization method based on the atlas boundary is transmitted (Wang: paragraph [0191], disclosing use of a multi reference line index that is signaled; paragraph [0142], disclosing encoding by a binarization method). The motivation for combining Xu and Wang has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above. Regarding claim 10, Xu and Wang disclose: An image decoding method (Xu: paragraph [0048], disclosing decoding of encoded video), the method comprising: deriving an atlas boundary from a reference sample region of a current block (Xu: paragraph [0084], disclosing prediction of a sample region of a current block; Figs. 13-14, paragraphs [0017] – [0018], disclosing that 3D mesh segments may be used to generate a 2D atlas; Fig. 15, paragraph [0119], disclosing that an atlas boundary may be derived for the atlas); determining, in response to an existence of the atlas boundary, whether an index of a reference sample line having the atlas boundary is greater than a threshold value (Xu: paragraph [0084], disclosing that prediction of the current block is restricted to a nearest reference line or a set of candidate reference lines; paragraphs [0121] – [0122], disclosing that when a boundary vertex in 3D corresponds to multiple vertices in an atlas an index may be signaled to indicate a mapping function of the vertices; Wang: Fig. 9, paragraphs [0190] – [0191], disclosing use of a reference line index for prediction; paragraph [0288], disclosing determining whether the reference line index is non-zero—e.g., greater than zero); decoding (Xu: paragraphs [0048 – [0050] and [0065] – [0069], disclosing decoding of encoded video), according to whether the index of the reference sample line having the atlas boundary is greater than the threshold value, the MRL syntax by a changed binarization method based on the atlas boundary through adaptively receiving a multiple reference line (MRL) syntax of the current block (Xu: paragraph [0084], disclosing multiple reference line prediction that uses a flag to signal which reference tier is chosen for an intra-directional mode; paragraph [0116], disclosing that the atlas boundary information may be predicted—e.g., using multiple reference line prediction; Wang: Fig. 9, paragraph [0191], disclosing that the reference line index is signaled—e.g., that a syntax is used; paragraph [0288], disclosing that when the reference line index is greater than zero a value of the index is signaled; paragraph [0142], disclosing encoding by a binarization method; paragraph [0485], disclosing that difference binarizations are used based on the reference line index). The motivation for combining Xu and Wang has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above. Regarding claim 12, Xu and Wang disclose: The method of Claim 10, wherein: in response to the index of the reference sample line having the atlas boundary being less than or equal to the threshold value, the MRL syntax is not received (Wang: paragraph [0288], disclosing that when the reference line index is zero, a value of the reference line index is not signaled). The motivation for combining Xu and Wang has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above. Regarding claim 13, Xu and Wang disclose: The method of Claim 10, wherein: in response to the index of the reference sample line having the atlas boundary being greater than the threshold value, the MRL syntax encoded by the changed binarization method based on the atlas boundary is received (Wang: paragraph [0191], disclosing use of a multi reference line index that is signaled; paragraph [0142], disclosing encoding by a binarization method). The motivation for combining Xu and Wang has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above. Regarding claim 15, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. (Note that Xu discloses implementation via computer readable medium in paragraphs [0041] and [0170].) Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11 and 14 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 2, Xu, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose deriving the atlas boundary is performed by applying a filter for calculating at least one of a horizontal gradient or a vertical gradient for a top reference pixel column. Regarding claim 3, Xu, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose deriving the atlas boundary is performed by applying a filter for calculating at least one of a horizontal gradient or a vertical gradient for a left reference pixel column. Regarding claim 4, Xu, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose deriving the atlas boundary is performed by applying a filter for calculating at least one of a horizontal gradient or a vertical gradient for a reference sample region that gets out of a boundary of a height and a width of the current block. Regarding claims 8 and 9, Xu, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose where the MRL syntax encoded by the changed binarization method has a value obtained by subtracting a specific value from a maximum available MRL index value configured in any one of a Video Parameter Set (VPS), a Sequence Parameter Set (SPS) or a Picture Parameter Set (PPS). Regarding claim 11, Xu, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose deriving the atlas boundary is performed by applying a filter for calculating at least one of a horizontal gradient or a vertical gradient for a reference sample region that gets out of a boundary of a height and a width of the current block. Regarding claim 14, Xu, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose the MRL syntax encoded by the changed binarization method has a value obtained by subtracting a specific value from a maximum available MRL index value configured in any one of a Video Parameter Set (VPS), a Sequence Parameter Set (SPS) or a Picture Parameter Set (PPS). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Braniff whose telephone number is (571) 270-5009. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM to 4PM. 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, Thai Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7382. 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. CHRISTOPHER T. BRANIFF Primary Examiner Art Unit 2484 /CHRISTOPHER BRANIFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 24, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598279
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROCESSING FRAME SEQUENCE AND SYSTEM FOR TREATING VISUAL DYSFUNCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593067
PREDICTIVE CODING OF TEXTURE COORDINATES FOR POLYGON MESH COMPRESSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587627
METHODS AND SYSTEM OF MULTIVIEW VIDEO RENDERING, PREPARING A MULTIVIEW CACHE, AND REAL-TIME MULTIVIEW VIDEO CONVERSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586257
METHOD FOR ENCODING AND DECODING A 3D POINT CLOUD, ENCODER, DECODER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581115
GROUPING OF DUPLICATE VERTICES IN POSITION COMPRESSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+10.2%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 637 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