CTNF 18/840,553 CTNF 81052 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Information Disclosure Statement 1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/22/2024 and 06/13/2025 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file. 2. Claims 1-30 are canceled. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. 4. Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not clear support of what “medium” has been positively disclosed as. The claimed invention appears to be “ a storage medium having a program coupled to the processing circuitry …” is nonstatutory. Claim 48 is not limited to tangible embodiments. It is not clear support of what “ medium ” has been positive disclosed as. It can be reasonably interpreted that the storage medium would include embodiments including propagation media, such as carrier waves, which fail to establish a statutory category of invention. Amending the specification as well as the claim to recite "a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium…" is believed to be sufficient to overcome this rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103 07-20-aia AIA 5. 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. 07-21-aia AIA 6. Claim s 31-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry Felix (WO 2022/013249) in view of Stockhammer et al. (U.S PAT. 11,381,867 hereinafter, “Stockhammer”) . Consider claim 31, Henry teaches a method performed by a first entity, the method comprising: obtaining decoding information (page 41 [0146]); and transmitting a video bitstream towards a second entity, wherein the video bitstream comprises the obtained decoding information (page 35 [0129]), the first entity (encoding device) comprises a video encoder, and/or the second entity (decoding device) comprises a video decoder (page 16 [0058]). Henry does not explicitly show that wherein the decoding information includes at least one neural network, NN, complexity value complex, and said at least one NN complexity value indicates NN decoding capability for using one or more NN models in a decoding process of a video bitstream. In the same field of endeavor, Stockhammer teaches wherein the decoding information includes at least one neural network, NN, complexity value complex, and said at least one NN complexity value indicates NN decoding capability for using one or more NN models in a decoding process of a video bitstream (col. 14 lines 23-37). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use, wherein the decoding information includes at least one neural network, NN, complexity value complex, and said at least one NN complexity value indicates NN decoding capability for using one or more NN models in a decoding process of a video bitstream, as taught by Stockhammer, in order for retrieving the media data including the encoded video streams in response to determining that the client device is capable of decoding the encoded video streams using the complexity value. Consider claim 32, Henry further teaches wherein the decoding information is transmitted as part of a session negotiation or session setup for a video session between the first and the second entity, wherein either the first entity is a video streaming server, the second entity is a video streaming client, the method further comprises receiving a request for information for setting up a video streaming session, the request was transmitted by the second entity, and the decoding information is transmitted towards the second entity as a result of the first entity receiving the request (pages 43-44 [0153]), or the first entity is an offeror of a video conferencing session, the second entity is an answerer of the video conferencing session, the method comprises the first entity initiating a session negotiation for the video conferencing session, and initiating the session negotiation comprises transmitting towards the second entity the decoding information. Consider claim 33, the subject-matter of independent claim 33 relates to a wireless device with features fully corresponding to the characteristics of claim 31. Therefore, the same argumentation presented in relation to claim 31 is, mutatis mutandis, of application to claim 33. Consider claim 34, Stockhammer further teaches wherein said at least one NN complexity value comprises a first NN complexity value and a second NN complexity value, wherein the first NN complexity value indicates a first NN decoding capability for using one or more NN models in a decoding process of the video bitstream, the second NN complexity value indicates a second NN decoding capability for using one or more NN models in a decoding process of the video bitstream, and the first NN decoding capability and the second NN decoding capability are different (col. 19 lines 39-55). Consider claim 35, Stockhammer further teaches the method of claim 34, further comprising one of: (1) determining that the second entity has the NN decoding capability indicated by said at least one NN complexity value and, as a result of the determination, decoding the video bitstream using at least one of the one or more NN models, or (2) determining that the second entity does not have the NN decoding capability indicated by said at least one NN complexity value (col. 19 lines 39-55); and as a result of the determination, selectively decoding the video bitstream, wherein selectively decoding the video bitstream comprises not decoding a portion of the video bitstream of which decoding requires the NN decoding capability indicated by said at least one NN complexity value (col. 20 line 66 through col. 21, line 10). Consider claim 36, Stockhammer further teaches wherein said at least one NN complexity value indicates any one or more of the followings: (i) a computational capability of one or more NN models needed for decoding the video bitstream (col. 19 lines 39-55); (ii) a total size of said one or more NN models; (iii) a type of architecture used by said one or more NN models; (iv) a number of nodes, a number of input parameters, and/or a number of weights of said one or more NN models; (v) information related to input parameters of the NN model; (vi) a number of layers included in said one or more NN models; (vii) a batch size of said one or more NN models; (viii) a patch size of said one or more NN models; (ix) a memory requirement of storing said one or more NN models; (x) an amount of a memory needed for storing input parameters of said one or more NN models; and (xi) a type of hardware architecture used by said one or more NN models. Consider claim 37, Stockhammer further teaches wherein: said at least one NN complexity value comprises a first NN complexity value, and the first NN complexity value is determined using a function of any one or more of (i)-(xi), and/or: the NN decoding capability indicated by said at least one NN complexity value is any one of a maximum capability or an average capability needed for decoding the video bitstream or the video decoding operating point during a time interval (col. 14 lines 23-37). Consider claim 38, Henry further teaches wherein the decoding information does not contain all information needed for constructing a NN model used for decoding the bitstream (page 35 [0129]). Consider claim 39, the previous rejections of claim 32 apply mutatis mutandis to corresponding claim 39. Consider claim 40, Stockhammer further teaches during the session negotiation: transmitting alternative decoding information including one or more alternative NN complexity values indicating a capability of the second entity's NN for decoding the video bitstream or the video decoding operating point; and receiving a response message indicating whether the first entity can accept the capability of the second entity's NN, wherein the response message was transmitted by the first entity (col. 19 lines 39-55). Consider claim 41, Henry further teaches wherein the decoding information is conveyed using at least one of: (i) Real-Time Streaming Protocol, RTSP; (ii) Dynamic Adaptive Streaming DASH; (iii) Motion Picture Experts Group-DASH, MPEG-DASH; (iv) Hypertext Transfer Protocol, HTTP, Living Streaming, HLS; (v) International Standard Organization, ISO, Base Media File Format, ISOBMFF; (vi) Common Media Application Format, CMAF; (vii) Session Description Protocol, SDP; (viii) Real-Time Transport Protocol, RTP; (ix) Session Initiation Protocol, SIP; (x) Web Real-Time Communication, WebRTC; and/or (xi) Secure Frame, SFRAME; (xii) a video usability information, VUI; (xiii) a profile, tier, and level, PTL, structure; (xiv) a general constraints information, GCI, structure; (xv) a decoding capability information, DCI, structure; (xvi) a video parameter set, VPS; (xvii) a sequence parameter set, SPS; (xviii) a picture parameter set, PPS; (xix) a picture header, PH; and/or (xx) a slice header, SH (page 40 [0144]). Consider claim 42, Henry further teaches wherein the decoding information is transmitted using DASH and is transmitted in a Media Presentation Description, MPD, as at least one element or attribute in an Adaptation Set, Representation, or Sub-Representation (pages 26-27 [0096]). Consider claim 43, the previous rejections of claim 36 apply mutatis mutandis to corresponding claim 43. Consider claim 44, the previous rejections of claim 37 apply mutatis mutandis to corresponding claim 44. Consider claim 45, the previous rejections of claim 38 apply mutatis mutandis to corresponding claim 45. Consider claim 46, the previous rejections of claim 41 apply mutatis mutandis to corresponding claim 46. Consider claim 47, the previous rejections of claim 42 apply mutatis mutandis to corresponding claim 47. Consider claim 48, the subject-matter of independent claim 48 relates to a wireless device with features fully corresponding to the characteristics of claim 31. Therefore, the same argumentation presented in relation to claim 31 is, mutatis mutandis, of application to claim 48. Conclusion 7. Any response to this action should be mailed to: Mail Stop_________ (Explanation, e.g., Amendment or After-final, etc.) Commissioner for Patents P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 Facsimile responses should be faxed to: (571) 273-8300 Hand-delivered responses should be brought to: Customer Service Window Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22313 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan H. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-8329. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00Am - 5:00Pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pan Yuwen can be reached on (571) 272-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /TUAN H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/840,553 Page 2 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/840,553 Page 3 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/840,553 Page 4 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/840,553 Page 5 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/840,553 Page 6 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/840,553 Page 7 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/840,553 Page 8 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/840,553 Page 9 Art Unit: 2649
Prosecution Insights