Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/923,624

DIRECTION-ADAPTIVE REGION-BASED PREDICTION COMBINATION

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 22, 2024
Examiner
NAWAZ, TALHA M
Art Unit
2483
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Tencent America LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
538 granted / 604 resolved
+31.1% vs TC avg
Minimal -1% lift
Without
With
+-0.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
633
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.2%
-32.8% vs TC avg
§103
48.1%
+8.1% vs TC avg
§102
24.9%
-15.1% vs TC avg
§112
11.0%
-29.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 604 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 This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior application, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or divisional. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/20/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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. Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20220312003) (hereinafter Lee) in view of Lee (US20190281297) (hereinafter Lee2). Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a method of video decoding, comprising: receiving a video bitstream including coded information of a current block in a current picture [ABS, 0071-0077; signaling coding information in a bitstream]. dividing the current block into a plurality of subblocks based on a region division shape of a plurality of region division shapes [0345; dividing and partitioning coding blocks into plurality of regions]. determining a weight set for each of the plurality of subblocks, the weight set including a first weight for an intra prediction of the respective subblock and a second weight for an inter prediction of the respective subblock [TBL 1, Figs. 3-11, 0230-0231, 0562-0575; applying different weights for intra and inter prediction blocks]. reconstructing each of the plurality of subblocks based on the weight set, the intra prediction, and the inter prediction that are associated with the respective subblock [0140-0146; reconstructing coded data utilizing parameters]. Lee discloses the limitations of the claim. However, Lee does not explicitly disclose dividing the current block into a plurality of subblocks based on a region division shape of a plurality of region division shapes that is associated with an intra prediction mode of the current block. Lee2 more explicitly discloses dividing the current block into a plurality of subblocks based on a region division shape of a plurality of region division shapes that is associated with an intra prediction mode of the current block [Figs. 3-14, 17-19, 0109, 0115-0126, 0134-0141, 0152-0164; variety of partitioning of coding blocks and determining coding based on size, shape or a coding mode for the block]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Lee with the teachings of Lee2 as stated above. By incorporating the teachings as such reduction of coding redundancy and improvement of coding efficiency is achieved (see Lee2 0009-0018). Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses wherein the dividing the current block further comprises: dividing the current block into the plurality of subblocks with a plurality of perpendicular division lines, intersection points of the plurality of perpendicular division lines intersecting a diagonal line indicated by the intra prediction mode of the current block [Figs. 3-13, 0071, 0138, 0180-0185, 0209; dynamic block partitioning and determination of coding schemes]. Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses wherein a size of a first region on a first side of the diagonal line is equal to a second region of a second side of the diagonal line [Figs. 3-13, 0071, 0138, 0180-0185, 0209; dynamic block partitioning and determination of coding schemes]. Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses wherein each of the plurality of subblocks has a same height [Figs. 3-13, 0071, 0138, 0180-0185, 0209; dynamic block partitioning and shapes and sizes]. Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses wherein each of the plurality of subblocks has a same width [Figs. 3-13, 0071, 0138, 0180-0185, 0209; dynamic block partitioning and shapes and sizes]. Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses wherein the dividing the current block further comprises: when the intra prediction mode of the current block is positioned between two predefined angular modes, dividing the current block into the plurality of subblocks according to the region division shape that corresponds to the two predefined angular modes [Figs. 3-13, 0071, 0138, 0180-0185, 0209; dynamic block partitioning, directions shapes, sizes and angles]. Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses wherein the region division shape of the current block is selected from the plurality of region division shapes according to a shape index syntax included in the coded information [Figs. 3-13, 0071, 0138, 0180-0185, 0209; dynamic block partitioning, directions shapes, sizes and angles]. Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses wherein each of the plurality of subblocks has one of a square shape, a rectangular shape, a L-shape, or a polygon shape [Figs. 3-13, 0071, 0138, 0180-0185, 0209; dynamic block partitioning, directions shapes, sizes and angles]. Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses wherein a shape of each of the plurality of subblocks is defined by at least one of a block size, a block shape, or the coded information of the current block [Figs. 3-13, 0071, 0138, 0180-0185, 0209; dynamic block partitioning, directions shapes, sizes and angles]. Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses wherein the determining the weight set for each of the plurality of subblocks further comprises: determining the weight set for each of the plurality of subblocks as a predefined weight set that is included in a look-up table [TBL 1, Figs. 3-11, 0230-0231, 0562-0575; applying different weights for intra and inter prediction blocks]. Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses a method of video encoding, comprising: dividing a current block in a current picture into a plurality of subblocks based on a region division shape of a plurality of region division shapes that is associated with an intra prediction mode of the current block [0345; dividing and partitioning coding blocks into plurality of regions]. determining a weight set for each of the plurality of subblocks, the weight set including a first weight for an intra prediction of the respective subblock and a second weight for an inter prediction of the respective subblock [TBL 1, Figs. 3-11, 0230-0231, 0562-0575; applying different weights for intra and inter prediction blocks]. encoding each of the plurality of subblocks based on the weight set, the intra prediction, and the inter prediction that are associated with the respective subblock [0140-0146; reconstructing coded data utilizing parameters]. Lee discloses the limitations of the claim. However, Lee does not explicitly disclose dividing the current block into a plurality of subblocks based on a region division shape of a plurality of region division shapes that is associated with an intra prediction mode of the current block. Lee2 more explicitly discloses dividing the current block into a plurality of subblocks based on a region division shape of a plurality of region division shapes that is associated with an intra prediction mode of the current block [Figs. 3-14, 17-19, 0109, 0115-0126, 0134-0141, 0152-0164; variety of partitioning of coding blocks and determining coding based on size, shape or a coding mode for the block]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Lee with the teachings of Lee2 as stated above. By incorporating the teachings as such reduction of coding redundancy and improvement of coding efficiency is achieved (see Lee2 0009-0018). Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses wherein the dividing the current block further comprises: dividing the current block into the plurality of subblocks with a plurality of perpendicular division lines, intersection points of the plurality of perpendicular division lines intersecting a diagonal line indicated by the intra prediction mode of the current block [Figs. 3-13, 0071, 0138, 0180-0185, 0209; dynamic block partitioning, directions shapes, sizes and angles]. Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses wherein a size of a first region on a first side of the diagonal line is equal to a second region of a second side of the diagonal line [Figs. 3-13, 0071, 0138, 0180-0185, 0209; dynamic block partitioning, directions shapes, sizes and angles]. Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses wherein each of the plurality of subblocks has a same height [Figs. 3-13, 0071, 0138, 0180-0185, 0209; dynamic block partitioning, directions shapes, sizes and angles]. Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses wherein each of the plurality of subblocks has a same width [Figs. 3-13, 0071, 0138, 0180-0185, 0209; dynamic block partitioning, directions shapes, sizes and angles]. Regarding claim 18, Lee discloses wherein the dividing the current block further comprises: when the intra prediction mode of the current block is positioned between two predefined angular modes, dividing the current block into the plurality of subblocks according to the region division shape that corresponds to the two predefined angular modes [TBL 1, Figs. 3-11, 0230-0231, 0562-0575; applying different weights for intra and inter prediction blocks]. Regarding claim 19, Lee discloses further comprising: signaling a shape index syntax into a bitstream that indicates which one of the plurality of region division shapes is determined as the region division shape [Figs. 3-13, 0071, 0138, 0180-0185, 0209; dynamic block partitioning, directions shapes, sizes and angles]. Regarding claim 20, Lee discloses a method of processing video data, the method comprising: processing a bitstream of the video data according to a format rule, wherein: the bitstream includes coded information of a current block in a current picture [ABS, 0071-0077; signaling coding information in a bitstream]. the format rule specifies that: the current block is divided into a plurality of subblocks based on a region division shape of a plurality of region division shapes that is associated with an intra prediction mode of the current block [0345; dividing and partitioning coding blocks into plurality of regions]. a weight set is determined for each of the plurality of subblocks, the weight set including a first weight for an intra prediction of the respective subblock and a second weight for an inter prediction of the respective subblock [TBL 1, Figs. 3-11, 0230-0231, 0562-0575; applying different weights for intra and inter prediction blocks]. each of the plurality of subblocks is processed based on the weight set, the intra prediction, and the inter prediction that are associated with the respective subblock [0140-0146; reconstructing coded data utilizing parameters]. Lee discloses the limitations of the claim. However, Lee does not explicitly disclose dividing the current block into a plurality of subblocks based on a region division shape of a plurality of region division shapes that is associated with an intra prediction mode of the current block. Lee2 more explicitly discloses dividing the current block into a plurality of subblocks based on a region division shape of a plurality of region division shapes that is associated with an intra prediction mode of the current block [Figs. 3-14, 17-19, 0109, 0115-0126, 0134-0141, 0152-0164; variety of partitioning of coding blocks and determining coding based on size, shape or a coding mode for the block]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Lee with the teachings of Lee2 as stated above. By incorporating the teachings as such reduction of coding redundancy and improvement of coding efficiency is achieved (see Lee2 0009-0018). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 11-12 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 prior arts of record individually nor in combination do not explicitly disclose determining a plurality of candidate weight sets for a first subblock of the plurality of subblocks, determining a template of the first subblock, the template including neighboring samples adjacent to the first subblock, determining an intra prediction value for the template based on an intra prediction mode associated with the first subblock and an inter prediction value for the template based on an inter prediction mode associated with the first subblock, applying the plurality of candidate weight sets to the intra prediction value and the inter prediction value of the template to generate a plurality of candidate prediction values of the template and determining a plurality of cost values based on a reconstructed value of the template and each of the plurality of candidate prediction values of the template and selecting one of the plurality of candidate weight sets as the weight set for the first subblock that corresponds to a smallest cost value of the plurality of cost values of the template, when taken in the environment of the independent claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALHA M NAWAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5439. The examiner can normally be reached Flex, M-R 6:30am-3:30pm; F 8:30am-12:30pm. 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, Joe G Ustaris can be reached at 571-272-7383. 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. /TALHA M NAWAZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 22, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 17, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 20, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593023
Electronic Device with Reliable Passthrough Video Fallback Capability and Hierarchical Failure Detection Scheme
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587631
Motion Dependent Display
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587673
METHOD FOR DECODER-SIDE MOTION VECTOR DERIVATION USING SPATIAL CORRELATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581024
IMAGE PROCESSING DEVICE AND IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573203
MEDICAL OBSERVATION SYSTEM, INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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
89%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (-0.8%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 604 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