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 September 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The examiner argues that the applicant’s argumentative approach is that Ugur does not teach any of the claim limitations by listing each one. The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the applicant suggests that Ugur simply is teaching an encoding and decoding process. However, starting at paragraph 374, Ugur beings to disclose a system for streaming media over HTTP. Though these fields are related one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to appreciate the different mechanism within each field of art. Further, Ugur discloses processing segments that includes content (i.e., video, audio, text) over a time period which the examiner argue suggests frames are included within each segment. Ugur also discloses a client device receiving said content.
Further, Ugur’s disclosure details that in using a dynamic adaptive streaming process that parses a Media Presentation Description(MPD) and provides data related to the content (i.e. frames in each segment) relating to resolution, minimum and maximum bandwidths, and other content characteristics. The examiner argues that the data and its different representations indicate the frame and further frame. These different representations reflect the ability to fetch different segments based on monitoring network fluctuations to maintain adequate buffer requirements (¶ 376). These indicates that service metrics are calculated to ensure that optimal performance by the overall system as disclosed by Ugur.
Ugur’s disclosure states that the system has a process for adaptive resolution change which is a process that would affect service metric relating to networking bandwidth, resolution, and buffer occupancy. Further, it explains a process whereby except for the access unit where the resolution occurs that a transmitting a single bitstream with changing resolutions. Again, the examiner argues that this is a clear indication that Ugur holds relevance to the claimed invention’s limitation regarding a frame that is excluded from a service metric. This access unit has a function, for example resolution changing, and thus is excluded from the need of calculating a service metric.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 11 and 13 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ugur et al (US 2014/0219346, hereafter Ugur).
As per claim 1, Ugur discloses a method comprising:
receiving, at a computing device, a first frame and a further frame of content (¶ 360 - 400), wherein at least one frame associated with a resolution that differs from the first frame is a reference frame for the first frame (¶ 393 and 409);
determining, based on a first indication associated with the first frame, that the first frame is to be excluded from at least one service metric calculation (¶ 360 - 400) associated with receiving the content, wherein the at least one frame precedes the first frame and the further frame in the content (¶ 393 and 409);
causing, based on the first indication, the first frame to be excluded from the at least one service metric calculation; (¶ 360 - 400)
determining, based on a further indication associated with the further frame, that the further frame is to be included in the at least one service metric calculation (¶ 360 - 400); and
determining, based on the further indication, and based on the further frame, the at least one service metric calculation (¶ 360 - 400).
As per claim 2, Ugur discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the further frame is associated with a first representation of the content, and wherein the method further comprises:
sending, based on the at least one service metric calculation, a request for a second representation of the content (¶ 360 - 400); and
receiving a plurality of frames of the second representation of the content (¶ 360 - 400).
As per claim 3,Ugur discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the second representation is associated with a higher resolution than a resolution associated with the first representation, or wherein the second representation is associated with a lower resolution than the resolution associated with the first representation (¶ 375 - 380).
As per claim 4, Ugur discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first indication identifies the first frame as being associated with an adaptive resolution change (ARC), and wherein the method further comprises at least one of:
receiving a portion of a manifest associated with the content, wherein the portion of the manifest comprises the first indication (¶ 368);
receiving the first frame, wherein the first frame is indicative of the first indication;
receiving a frame that precedes the first frame, wherein the frame that precedes the first frame is indicative of the first indication (¶ 368);
receiving a message comprising the first indication (¶ 368 and 374);
receiving, via a metadata track associated with the content, the first indication; receiving a segment boundary indicator comprising the first indication; or receiving a chunk boundary indicator comprising the first indication (¶ 368).
As per claim 5, Ugur discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second indication identifies the further frame as not being associated with an adaptive resolution change (ARC), and wherein the method further comprises at least one of receiving a portion of a manifest associated with the content, wherein the portion of the manifest comprises the second indication; receiving the further frame, wherein the further frame is indicative of the second indication; receiving a frame that precedes the further frame, wherein the frame that precedes the further frame is indicative of the second indication; receiving a message comprising the second indication; receiving, via a metadata track associated with the content, the second indication; receiving a segment boundary indicator comprising the second indication; or receiving a chunk boundary indicator comprising the second indication (¶ 360 - 400).
As per claim 6, Ugur discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one service metric calculation comprises at least one of:
a quality-of-service measurement, a quality of experience measurement, or a bandwidth measurement, and wherein the further frame comprises at least one of: a transform coefficient, a quantization value, a motion estimation value, an inter-prediction value, an intra-prediction value, or a partitioning value (¶ 368 - 374).
As per claim 7, Ugur discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the at least one service metric calculation comprises:
determining, based on the first indication, a bandwidth metric associated with receiving the first frame and one or more frames adjacent to the first frame; and determining, based on the bandwidth metric , the at least one service metric (¶ 368 - 374).
As per claim 8, Ugur discloses a method comprising: receiving, at a computing device, a first frame of content; determining, based on a first indication associated with the first frame, that the first frame is to be excluded from at least one service metric calculation; causing, based on the first indication, the first frame to be excluded from the at least one service metric calculation; determining, based on the first indication, a bandwidth metric associated with receiving a next frame of the content; and determining, based on the bandwidth metric, the at least one service metric calculation (¶ 377 - 400).
As per claim 9, Ugur discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the first frame comprises a boundary of a first chunk of the content or a first segment of the content (¶ 377).
Regarding claim 10, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 4 are applicable for claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 6 are applicable for claim 11.
As per claim 13, Ugur discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: determining, based on a second indication identifying a further frame of the content as not being associated with an adaptive resolution change, and based on one or more parameters of the further frame, the at least one service metric calculation (¶ 377 - 400).
Regarding claim 14, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 6 are applicable for claim 14.
As per claim 15, Ugur disclose a method comprising: encoding, by a first computing device, a first frame and a further frame of content , wherein the further frame is associated with a different resolution than a resolution associated with the first frame; and sending, to a second computing device, at least one indication associated with at least the first frame or the further frame, wherein the at least one indication causes the second computing device to: exclude the first frame from at least one service metric calculation, and determine, based on the further frame, the at least one service metric calculation (¶ 377 - 400).
As per claim 16, Ugur discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the at least one indication identifies the first frame as being associated with an adaptive resolution change (ARC), and wherein the at least one indication identifies the further frame as not being associated with the ARC (¶ 377 - 400).
As per claim 17, Ugur discloses the method of claim 16, wherein sending the at least one indication comprises at least one of sending a portion of a manifest associated with the content, wherein the portion of the manifest comprises the at least one indication; sending the first frame, wherein the first frame is indicative of the at least one indication; sending a frame that precedes the first frame, wherein the frame that precedes the first frame is indicative of the at least one indication; sending a message comprising the at least one indication; sending a metadata track associated with the content, wherein the metadata track comprises the at least one indication; sending a segment boundary indicator comprising the at least one indication; or sending a chunk boundary indicator comprising the at least one indication (¶ 377 - 405).
Regarding claim 18, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 6 are applicable for claim 18.
As per claim 19, Ugur discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the at least one indication further causes the second computing device to: determine, based on the at least one indication identifying the first frame as being associated with an adaptive resolution change, a bandwidth metric associated with the first frame and at least one adjacent frame; and determine, based on the bandwidth metric , the at least one service metric calculation (¶ 377 - 400).
As per claim 20, Ugur discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the different resolution associated with the further frame comprises a higher resolution than the resolution associated with the first frame, or wherein the different resolution associated with the further frame comprises a lower resolution than the resolution associated with the first frame (¶ 377 - 405).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al (US 2023/0046994, hereafter Zhang).
As per claim 1, Zhang discloses a method comprising:
receiving, at a computing device, a first frame and a further frame of content; determining, based on a first indication associated with the first frame, that the first frame is to be excluded from at least one service metric calculation; causing, based on the first indication, the first frame to be excluded from the at least one service metric calculation; determining, based on a further indication associated with the further frame, that the further frame is to be included in the at least one service metric calculation; and determining, based on the further indication, and based on the further frame, the at least one service metric calculation (¶ 222; Zhang discloses having two types of frames a non-RPR frame and a RPR frame. The examiner argues that “service metric calculation” is a broad term because one of ordinary skill in art could consider various types of metrics as a service metric. Thus, the mv/mvd precision can be considered a service metric calculation. Zhang explains that it is applied for non-RPR case but for the RPR does not consider mv/mvd precision).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 12 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.
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.
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, David Czekaj can be reached on 571-272-7327. 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.
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487