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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
1.Claims 10-11 and 13-14 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2.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.
3.Claim(s) 1-9, 12 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 20210112109).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 15, Lu discloses a method comprising: determining, by a user equipment (UE) originating a video call (fig.8), that a non-Third Generation Partnership Project (non-3GPP) advanced video codec is available to the UE for video calling (Paragraphs: 0044 and 0049: Lu discusses how the system encoded video data (e.g. in the format of OBUs) is encapsulated within NAL units as part of a streaming video session (e.g., as part of a real-time video communication session) that uses the session description protocol (SDP)); notifying, by the UE and through a session description protocol (SDP) offer, a terminating UE for the video call of the availability of the non-3GPP advanced video codec to the UE (Paragraph: 0057: Lu discusses how in response to the SDP message from the first computing device 310, the second computing device 320 can send an SDP message to the first computing device 310 that includes information describing the codecs supported by the second computing device 320); receiving, by the UE, an SDP answer from the terminating UE, the SDP answer indicating whether the non-3GPP advanced video codec is available to the terminating UE (Paragraphs: 0057-0058: Lu discusses how the first computing device can send an SDP message to the second computing device that includes information describing the codecs supported by the first computing device); and when the non-3GPP advanced video codec is available to both the UE and the terminating UE, utilizing the non-3GPP advanced video codec for the video call (Paragraphs: 0057 and 0058: Lu discusses how both computing devices can configure themselves to send and receive streaming video content using H.264 RTP that encapsulates AV1 upon determining that both computing devices support encapsulating AV1 encoded video data within NAL units).
Lu discloses the invention set forth above but does not specifically mentioning “video calling though a native dialer of the UE”. Lu however discloses a tablet, phone, or another type of computing device that encapsulates OBUs within NAL units for transmission in network packets (Lu: Paragraphs: 0036-0037 and 0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret the computing device such as a tablet and phone transmitting packet through a network as a native dialer with a video calling capability, as disclosed by Lu, thus establishing a video communication session in which alliance for open media video one frames are encapsulated in network abstraction layer units, as disclosed by Lu.
Considering claims 2 and 16, Lu discloses the method of claims 1 and 15, wherein the non-3GPP advanced video codec is an AOMedia Video 1 (AV1) codec (Paragraphs: 0018 and 0048: Lu discusses AOMedia Video 1 (AV1) is video codec and associated video coding).
Considering claims 3 and 17, Lu discloses the method of claims 1 and 15, wherein the notifying further comprises including, in the SDP offer, a list of one or more other video codecs available to the UE (Paragraphs: 0048 and 0057).
Considering claim 4, Lu discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the one or more other video codecs include H.264, H.265, H.266, or H.267 (Paragraphs: 0048 and 0057: H.264 codec).
Considering claims 5 and 18, Lu discloses the method of claims 3 and 17, wherein the SDP answer indicates that the non-3GPP advanced video codec is not available to the terminating UE and specifies at least one of the one or more other video codecs as available to the terminating UE, and the method further comprises using the at least one of the one or more other video codecs for the video call (Paragraphs: 0045 and 0048: Lu discusses AV1 codec in the SDP negotiation between the sender and the receiver; and how the clients have the choice to use H.264, or another codec).
Considering claim 6, Lu discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the notifying further comprises including, in the SDP offer, one or more parameters of the non-3GPP advanced video codec (Paragraph: 0057: Lu discusses in response to the SDP message from the first computing device 310, the second computing device 320 can send an SDP message to the first computing device 310 that includes information describing the codecs supported by the second computing device 320).
Considering claim 7, Lu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the receiving further comprises receiving, in the SDP answer, a list of one or more other video codecs supported by the terminating UE or, when the terminating UE indicates that the non-3GPP advanced video codec is available to the terminating UE, one or more parameters of the non-3GPP advanced video codec (Paragraphs: 0045, 0048 and 0057: Lu discusses AV1 codec in the SDP negotiation between the sender and the receiver; and how the clients have the choice to use H.264, or another codec).
Considering claims 8 and 19, Lu discloses the method of claims 1 and 15, wherein the video call is initiated using a bearer with a guaranteed bit rate because the video call is associated with the native dialer of the UE (Paragraphs: 0045, 0048 and 0058: Lu discusses AV1 codec in the SDP negotiation between the sender and the receiver; and how the clients have the choice to use H.264, or another codec; and how the VSR messages can be used to notify the other device of the video parameters supported and/or being used (e.g., supported resolutions, profiles, and bitrates, codec being used, etc.).
Considering claims 9 and 20, Lu discloses the method of claims 8 and 19, wherein another video call, initiated using a third-party application of the UE and using the non-3GPP advanced video codec, is initiated using a bearer that does not have a guaranteed bit rate (Paragraphs: 0057-0058 and 0062).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argued and disagrees that, the Office concludes, that the video transmission capabilities of, e.g., a mobile phone in Lu suggest the operation of a native dialer. Applicants also argues, the third-party dialers are well known to those having ordinary skill in the art and, while some communication application for a mobile device is suggested, the type, whether native or not, is not suggested without more - e.g., some discussion of the manner of the video transmission in Lu that particularly suggests the use of a native dialer rather than a third-party dialer. Applicants emphasized the argument by further stating that the difference between a native and a third-party dialer is non-trivial; and native dialers are known to have system level privileges that third-party dialers may lack. Applicants further argued, Lu does not teach or suggest, in of complete of detail as is claimed, "determining, by a user equipment (UE) originating a video call, that a non-Third Generation Partnership Project (non-3GPP) advanced video codec is available to the UE for video calling though a native dialer of the UE," as is claimed.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants’ own specification discloses how “each of originating UE and terminating UE may be configured with a native dialer for video calls and an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) stack for establishing packet-based communications; and how the UEs may have or use other software and such as third-party applications (applicants’ specification: Paragraph: 0012). The prior arts of the record (Lu et al.) also disclose how the sender device 210 can be any type of computing device (such as, a desktop computer, laptop computer, tablet, phone, or another type of computing device) for transmission in network packets; and how the device 210 capable of receiving or communicating video content (Lu: Paragraphs: 0036-0037 and fig.2, 210), i.e. with capability of video calling though a native dialer of the UE. Lu further discloses how the system encoded video data (e.g. in the format of OBUs) is encapsulated within NAL units as part of a streaming video session (e.g., as part of a real-time video communication session) that uses the session description protocol (SDP) (Lu: Paragraphs: 0044 and 0049). Therefore, the prior arts of the record disclose the argued claims limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSEF K LAEKEMARIAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5149. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30 M-F.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-7503. 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.
/YOSEF K LAEKEMARIAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2691 01/09/2026