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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7-10, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, 22-25, 27 and 28 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-10, 16 and 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain et al. (hereinafter ‘Jain’, Pub. No. 2021/0204011) in view of Boyce et al. (hereinafter ‘Boyce’, “Interoperability point signaling for VVC”, Publication Document JVET-K0311v1).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 16 and 22, Jain teaches a method, in a client device (Jain: multiple-level stat monitor 109, Figs. 1 and 2; [0028]; [0037]), comprising:
selecting an identifier of a user quality of experience , the identifier being associated with a group of constraint flag values, each constraint flag value of the group indicating whether to activate or deactivate an associated encoding tool of a video encoder (Jain: [0028]; [0029]; [0033]; [0034]; [0037]-[0039], where monitor 109 tracks information for the user device identifying QoE metrics that fall on a group of categories with respective values, after the analysis QoE estimated scores generated that will change encoding parameters);
transmitting the identifier to a server; and, receiving, from the server, video data encoded with encoding tools activated or deactivated responsive to the group of constraint flag values associated with the transmitted identifier (Jain: [0065]-[0069]; [0078]).
For claims 7 and 16,
Server devices or distribution elements use the methods of estimating QoE values at the client to correspond with modifying encoding parameters).
On the other hand, Jain does not explicitly teach
wherein the identifier is used to define a decoding decision allowing tuning a video decoder so that the video decoder skips at least one decoding process specified in the video data or the video decoder adds at least one additional decoding process to decoding processes specified in the video data.
However, in an analogous art, Boyce teaches proposing syntax to enable signaling for constraint flags for user-registered SEI messages. The use of Boyce’s proposed constraint flags would enable more fine-grained decoding tool disabling (or enabling, syntax dependent). Boyce teaches that decoding operation may change based upon the values of the constraint flags, including conditional presence of syntax (pages 1 and 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jain’s invention with Boyce’s feature of transmitting signaling through a specific syntax to enable/disable decoding tools for the benefit of fine-grain control of decoding tools based on signal constraint flags even over profile values.
Regarding claims 8 and 23, Jain and Boyce teach wherein the video data is encoded by a video encoder tuned based on the identifier (Jain: [0068]; [0069]; [0078]).
Regarding claims 9 and 24, Jain and Boyce teach wherein a tuning of the video encoder comprises activating or deactivating encoding tools associated with the group of constraint flags in function of the constraint flag values specified by the identifier (Jain: [0049]; [0069]).
Regarding claims 10 and 25, Jain and Boyce teach wherein the identifier is used to specify at least one encoding decision allowing defining a particular implementation of a video encoder independently of the constraint flag values and any profile (Jain: [0049]; [0069]).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 12, 13, 19, 20, 27 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain et al. (hereinafter ‘Jain’, Pub. No. 2021/204011) in view of Boyce et al. (hereinafter ‘Boyce’, “Interoperability point signaling for VVC”, Publication Document JVET-K0311v1) in further view of Ahmed et al. (hereinafter ‘Ahmed’, Pub. No. 2020/0220916).
Regarding claims 4, 12, 19 and 27, Jain and Boyce teach all the limitations of the claim they depend on. On the other hand, they do not explicitly teach
wherein selecting an identifier comprises selecting the identifier is after a phase of capability exchange with the server comprising a reception from the server of a session description protocol message specifying encoding tools that can be activated or deactivated or a set of qualities of experience that can be selected.
However, in an analogous art, Ahmed teaches a system that allows video streaming of audio/video remotely. The system establishes multimedia session between the receiving and streaming devices ([0022]; [0069]). Upon a transmission of a game identifier, and the analysis and exchange of capabilities of the receiving device, content is encoded accordingly ([0031]-[0039]). Based on the capabilities, session class can be activated for specific display device ([0040]). The encoder can provide a DesktopCapture service to the host computer ([0036]). Additionally, for real-time streaming, collected telemetry data can be provided into H.264 feed through SEI messages ([0054]-[0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jain and Boyce’s invention with Ahmed’s feature of exchanging capabilities with the server with a message specifying encoding tools that can be activated/deactivated for the benefit of optimizing capabilities for a higher quality of experience.
Regarding claims 5, 13, 20 and 28, Jain and Boyce teach all the limitations of the claims they depend on. On the other hand, they do not explicitly teach before selecting the identifier, the method comprises obtaining a description of a set of qualities of experience that can be selected in a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message.
However, in an analogous art, Ahmed teaches a system that allows video streaming of audio/video remotely. The system establishes multimedia session between the receiving and streaming devices ([0022]; [0069]). Upon a transmission of a game identifier, and the analysis and exchange of capabilities of the receiving device, content is encoded accordingly ([0031]-[0039]). Based on the capabilities, session class can be activated for specific display device ([0040]). The encoder can provide a DesktopCapture service to the host computer ([0036]). Additionally, for real-time streaming, collected telemetry data can be provided into H.264 feed through SEI messages ([0054]-[0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jain and Boyce’s invention with Ahmed’s feature of using SEI messages for the benefit of improving streaming performance indicating initial buffering and other information for a higher quality of experience.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR S PARRA whose telephone number is (571)270-1449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: Mostly 10-6PM.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-2721915. 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.
/OMAR S PARRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
