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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejection on claim 1, applicant argued prior arts fail to teach “determining, based on metadata from an electronic program guide and associated with the content, a source from which the content was received” and “receiving, based on the source from which the content was received, an encoding profile for encoding the content” because O’Connor teach content type but not “a source from which the content was received.” Applicant then argued that motivation of combining O’Connor and Hassan is not supported because O’Connor teach adapting content for playback on diverse devices in a home-network (DLNA) system while Hassan by contrast teach dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP (DASH) for internet video streaming. Applicant indicated that Hassan fails to solve the problem of O’Connor, which would not result one of ordinary skill in the art to look to Hassan’s DASH-based post encoding segment replacement/re-encoding approach to modify O’Connor’s DLNA home network encoding system.
However, examiner respectfully disagrees. First off, argued claim does not limit what “a source from which the content was received,” wherein “from which the content was received” merely limits source to be a term before “the content was received.” It lacks context to further limit interpretation of “source.” The filed specification of instant application (PGPub US2018/0343468) also discloses various interpretations, such as paragraph 0062 (a broadcaster, a geographic region, a source feed), paragraph 0066 (content source, content distributor, television station, etc.), paragraph 0080 (content asset that comprises a linear content channel), and paragraph 0081 (source identifier such as channel identifier). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret “source from which the content was received” as any one of following: direct source (e.g., directly received from), an indirect source (e.g., initial distributor, or intermediate distributor), geographic location (e.g., where content was distributed), channel (e.g., distribution medium), content creation (e.g., where or with what the content was created/recorded), content origination (e.g., television, movie, program), etc. So, program type would also be considered as “a source from which the content was received” because it defines origination of the content before it was received. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, O’Connor teach determining encoding profile based on metadata from EPG and associated with content (paragraphs 0008, 0024-0025, 0030, the metadata is used as a source of information provided to the decision handling unit so that the decision handling unit can instruct the content adaptor to apply an appropriate set of encoding rules and parameters) and source from which the content was received (paragraphs 0024, 0030, the receiver extract information concerning the tuned-station and program, wherein “tuned-station and program” would be considered as a source of the content, and source program type plays a role in deciding encoding rules and parameters).
Second off, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both O’Connor and Hassan teach adaptively re-encoding media content for streaming over wireless network. O’Connor’s home network system is not limited to be within a local environment, wherein system connected over Internet can also be considered as long as DLNA can be applied (paragraphs 0002-0003). To one of ordinary skill in the art, O’Connor’s system would obviously be affected by available link bandwidth under certain network conditions. And, Hassan’s teaching in dynamic adaptive streaming would be an improvement to O’Connor’s media streaming. Incorporating Hassan into O’Connor do not necessarily mean to integrate Hassan’s system into or to replace the system of O’Connor. Neither the combination of O’Connor and Hassan is to solve problem of O’Connor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have obviously recognized and incorporate feature merit in dynamic adaptive streaming of Hassan into the method of O’Connor, in order to maintain a desirable quality of experience (paragraph 0024 of Hassan).
Thus, rejection is proper and maintained.
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) 1-2, 5, 7-10, 12-15, 21-22, 24, 26-27, 29, 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over O’Connor et al. (US2011/0116540) in view of Hassan et al. (US2016/0088054).
To claim 1, O’Connor teach a method (Fig. 2) comprising:
receiving, by an encoder, content (paragraph 0025, receives a signal with respect to source multimedia digital content 26 from a cable TV supplier via cable);
determining, based on metadata from an electronic program guide and associated with the content, a source from which the content was received (paragraph 0025, metadata 28 associates with source media digital content 26; paragraph 0024, “… metadata information associated with it that enables the receiver of the set-top box to extract information concerning the tuned-station and program. For example, this data can include tuning information, frequency, MPEG program number, title, rating, content warnings, actors, program description, director, reviews, closed caption information, broadcast time, broadcast channel, duration, category and subcategory of program, video and audio parameters, and the like. Video content parameters can include, for example, information concerning display type (i.e., letterbox, wide screen, high definition, etc.), frames per second, visual quality, spatial resolution, PSNR, minimum and maximum bit-rates, length of encoded content, buffer management, and decoded playback, and audio parameters can include language, stereo, surround sound, Dolby, Dolby 5.1, or the like. The metadata facilitates watching, searching, and recording programs and permits a viewer to browse program summaries and search or sort by genre, title and/or channel”; wherein a source from which the content was received, may be interpreted as either directly or indirectly from, with various interpretations, e.g., director, broadcast channel, category and subcategory of program, etc., as origin or source of the content);
receiving, based on the source from which the content was received, an encoding profile (e.g., one or more encoding parameters) for encoding the content (paragraphs 0030, takes into consideration the type of program of the source multimedia digital content 26 via use of the metadata 28, which corresponds to category and subcategory of program);
determining, based on the encoding profile and an encoding quality metric (paragraph 0030, frame rate and spatial quality), a modified encoding profile (e.g., when switching playback channel or content, paragraphs 0026-0027, the rules are adjusted and changed depending upon media content and/or the device for which the content is being encoded for playback);
encoding, based on the modified encoding profile, a second portion of the content (50 of Fig. 3); and
sending the encoded second portion of the content (52 of Fig. 3)
But, O’Connor do not expressly disclose wherein the encoding quality metric is based on a previously encoded portion of the content and an unencoded portion of the content.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have obviously recognized lack of network bandwidth stability since O’Connor teach any network at any location at any time can be adapted (paragraphs 0002-0003), wherein distance and/or usage time are potential causes well-known in the art for link bandwidth instability.
Hassan teach a media streaming server adaptively encodes the media content (abstract) with quality metric as objective or subjective encoding criteria (paragraph 0048), wherein the quality metric is based on a previously encoded portion of the content and an unencoded portion of the content (paragraph 0048, quality metric can measure a difference between an original video signal and the encoded video signal), and segments or sub-segments of media content can be encoded or re-encoded using a different encoder configuration based on said encoding quality metric (paragraphs 0034, 0053, 0064, length of the adaptation set and each media segment or sub-segment is dependent on the type of media, system requirements, potential types of interference, and so forth), which would maintain a desirable quality of experience for an adaptive media stream at the client (paragraph 0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Hassan into the method of O’Connor, in order to implement alternative or additional encoding quality metric into adaptive encoding by design preference, so that a desirable quality of experience for media streaming can be maintained.
To claim 8, O’Connor and Hassan teach a method (as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claim 21, O’Connor and Hassan teach an apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and memory comprising processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors cause the apparatus to execute (as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claim 2, O’Connor and Hassan teach claim 1.
O’Connor and Hassan teach wherein determining the source from which the content was received comprises analyzing the metadata, and wherein the encoding profile comprises a bit rate setting, a resolution setting, or a combination thereof (as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claim 5, O’Connor and Hassan teach claim 1.
O’Connor and Hassan teach wherein sending the encoded second portion of the content comprises: sending the encoded second portion of the content to one or more of an encoding quality analyzer or one or more user device (O’Connor, Fig. 2).
To claim 7, O’Connor and Hassan teach claim 1.
O’Connor and Hassan teach wherein the content is associated with a content asset comprising a linear content channel (Hassan, paragraph 0025, real-time streaming) and wherein the encoder is configured to encode the content in real-time as the content is received from a content source (Hassan, paragraphs 0025, 0039, programming channel or network streaming)
To claim 9, O’Connor and Hassan teach claim 8.
O’Connor and Hassan teach further comprising receiving the metadata from the electronic program guide (O’Connor, paragraph 0008).
To claim 10, O’Connor and Hassan teach claim 8.
O’Connor and Hassan teach wherein determining the second encoding profile comprises modifying, based on the encoding quality metric, an encoder setting of the first encoding profile, wherein the encoder setting of the first encoding profile corresponds to a modified encoder setting of the second encoding profile (as explained in response to claim 1 above, adjust/adapt the encoder settings dynamically).
To claim 13, O’Connor and Hassan teach claim 8.
O’Connor and Hassan teach wherein the first encoding profile comprises a bit rate setting, a resolution setting, or a combination thereof (O’Connor, paragraphs 0024, 0032).
To claim 14, O’Connor and Hassan teach claim 8.
O’Connor and Hassan teach wherein the content comprises linear content, and wherein the encoder is configured to encode the content in real-time as the content is received from the source from which the content was received (as explained in response to claim 7 above).
To claim 15, O’Connor and Hassan teach claim 8.
O’Connor and Hassan teach further comprising sending, to one or more user devices, the encoded second portion of the content (as explained in response to claim 5 above).
To claim 22, O’Connor and Hassan teach claim 21.
O’Connor and Hassan teach wherein the processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to determine the source from which the content was received, cause the apparatus to analyze the metadata received from the electronic program guide (O’Connor, paragraph 0008).
To claim 24, O’Connor and Hassan teach claim 21.
O’Connor and Hassan teach wherein the processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to send the encoded second portion of the content, cause the apparatus to: send the encoded second portion of the content to one or more of an encoding quality analyzer or one or more user devices (as explained in response to claim 5 above).
To claim 27, O’Connor and Hassan teach claim 1.
O’Connor and Hassan teach further comprising: sending, by the encoder and to a computing device, an indication of the type of the content; and receiving, based on the indication of the source from which the content was received (as explained in response to claim 1 above, and Hassan, paragraphs 0019-0024, request specifics on content and quality).
To claim 29, O’Connor and Hassan teach claim 21.
O’Connor and Hassan teach wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to: determine a type of the content; send, to a computing device, an indication of the type of the content; and receive, based on the indication of the source from which the content was received, wherein receiving the encoding profile comprises receiving, based on the indication of the type of the content, the encoding profile (as explained in response claim 27 above).
To claims 31-33, O’Connor and Hassan teach claims 1, 8 and 21.
O’Connor and Hassan teach wherein determining, based on the encoding quality metric, the modified encoding profile comprises: determining the encoding quality metric satisfies a threshold; and determining, based on the encoding profile and the encoding quality metric satisfying the threshold, the modified encoding profile (Hassan, paragraphs 0017, 0053, 0061).
Claims 28, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor et al. (US2011/0116540), Hassan et al. (US2016/0088054) and Reynolds et al. (US2004/0045030).
To claim 28, O’Connor and Hassan teach claim 1.
But, O’Connor and Hassan do not expressly disclose further comprising: comparing a metric of the previously encoded portion of the content to a baseline metric of the unencoded portion of the content; and determining, based on a difference between the metric and the baseline metric, the encoding quality metric.
Reynold teach a system dynamically altering video encoding and compression settings (paragraph 0224), and wherein comparing a metric of previously encoded content to a baseline metric; and determining, based on a difference between the metric of the previously encoded content and the baseline metric, the encoding quality metric (paragraph 0198), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the method of O’Connor and Hassan, in order to further detail in QoS analysis.
To claim 30, O’Connor and Hassan teach claim 21.
O’Connor, Hassan and Reynold teach wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to: compare a metric of the previously encoded portion of the content to a baseline metric of the unencoded portion of the content; and determine, based on a difference between the metric and the baseline metric, the encoding quality metric (as explained in response to claim 28 above).
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 ZHIYU LU whose telephone number is (571)272-2837. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays: 8:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Stephen R Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
ZHIYU . LU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2669
/ZHIYU LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665 September 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights