Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 19/037,350

Deep Video Complexity Analysis for HTTP Adaptive Streaming

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jan 27, 2025
Priority
Jan 30, 2024 — provisional 63/626,559
Examiner
ANDERSON II, JAMES M
Art Unit
2425
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Bitmovin GmbH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 7m
Est. Remaining
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allowance Rate
519 granted / 690 resolved
+17.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
716
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
79.9%
+39.9% vs TC avg
§102
7.1%
-32.9% vs TC avg
§112
7.6%
-32.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 690 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Status of the Claims Claims 1-15 are pending. Drawings The drawings are objected to because figure 5B appears to be mislabeled as figure “8B”. There is no reference to a figure 8B in Applicant’s disclosure. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Independent claim 1 recites “predicting one or both of an encoding bitrate and an encoding time of the video input may be predicted using the spatial complexity label and the temporal complexity label”. The wording of this limitation is confusing such that the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. Furthermore, the recitation of “may” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The language suggests the encoding bitrate and an encoding time may or may not be predicted using the spatial complexity label and the temporal complexity label without any conditional factors. The phrase “may be predicted” should be removed and the limitation should read “predicting one or both of an encoding bitrate and an encoding time of the video input using the spatial complexity label and the temporal complexity label”. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the building blocks" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 2-9 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1. Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the plurality of building blocks" in lines 17-18. There appears to be insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is unclear if the claimed “plurality of building blocks” and “plurality of middle building blocks” are the same. Dependent claims 12-15 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 11. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Claims 2-10 and 12-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)270-1444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM-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, BRIAN PENDLETON can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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. /James M Anderson II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 27, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12641315
IMAGE PROCESSING SYSTEM, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROGRAM
1y 2m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12631951
PROJECTOR
2y 2m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12634469
SUB-BLOCK TEMPORAL MOTION VECTOR PREDICTION FOR VIDEO CODING
1y 8m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12634470
SUB-BLOCK TEMPORAL MOTION VECTOR PREDICTION FOR VIDEO CODING
1y 8m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12626521
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DEPTH MAP SAMPLING
2y 4m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+10.2%)
2y 11m (~1y 7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 690 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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