DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Status
Claims 21 and 30 are amended.
Claims 26, 35, 39 and 40 are canceled.
41 and 42 are newly added claims.
Claims 21-25, 27-34, 36-38, 41 and 42 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp
Claims 21, 24-28, and 33-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over corresponding claims as mapped in table below of U.S. Patent No. 10237321 in view of Furbeck et al. (US 20120203867), in further view of Ozgur, US 20140095670. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim same subject matter or they are obvious variation of claims in US Patent 10237321.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, mapping of claims as follows:
Instant Application No. 17/842,490
U.S. Patent No. 10237321
Claims 21, 30, and 38 maps to
Combined claim 1, 3 and 4
Claim 24-27 and 33-36 maps to
Claim 8
Claim 28 and 37 maps to
Claim 2
Claim 1 of US Patent 10237321 claims inventive steps same as of the inventive steps in claims 21, 30, and 38 of instant application. However, claim 1 of US Patent 10237321 does not claim limitations, “receive, in a media metadata file that is different from the MPD; the decoding complexity variability indicator indicates a relative difference of a decoding complexity associated with the first segment in reference to a decoding complexity associated with a second segment, wherein the second segment is earlier in time than the first segment.”
Furbeck discloses, receive, in a media metadata file that is different from the MPD ([0027]-[0028], [0066] – when parameters are added or updated in an MPD file, an MPD delta file, which is a media metadata file, is delivered to the client).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to modify Ozgur with the teachings of Furbeck by enabling reception of the decoding complexity indicators in a file that is different from the MPD. The motivation for this modification would have been to enable this information to be added or updated in a manner that requires low bandwidth consumption (see Furbeck [0066]).
Claim 1 of US Patent 11368509 in view of Furbeck does not disclose, the decoding complexity variability indicator indicates a relative difference of a decoding complexity associated with the first segment in reference to a decoding complexity associated with a second segment, wherein the second segment is earlier in time than the first segment.
Ganesan discloses, the decoding complexity variability indicator indicates a relative difference of a decoding complexity associated with the first segment in reference to a decoding complexity associated with a second segment, wherein the second segment is earlier in time than the first segment (col. 4, line 11-16, fig. 4, variation in the target bit rates as a function of segment. In the illustrated embodiment, the segment 407 is allocated a higher bit rate than the segment 402. By controlling the allocation of the target bit rates among the segments, more bits can be allocated to segments with more complex video and less bits can be allocated to segments with less complex video. col. 5, line 12-27, encode the segments 670 and generate complexity information 640. In one embodiment, the complexity information 640 includes the average bit rate allocated to each of the segments 670, the encoder 610 is configured to operate rapidly to provide an indication of the relative complexity of each of the segments 670. i.e. complexity information allocated to each segment in form of relative differences between assigned bit rate between segments being higher or lower, previous segment or next segment as shown in fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to modify Claim 1 of US Patent 10237321 in view of Furbeck with the teachings of the decoding complexity variability indicator indicates a relative difference of a decoding complexity associated with the first segment in reference to a decoding complexity associated with a second segment, wherein the second segment is earlier in time than the first segment, as taught by Ganesan. The motivation for this would to have more flexibility in bit allocation to improve video quality while allowing for the compressed video to be streamed (see Ganesan col. 1, line, 50-53).
Claims 21, 24-28, and 33-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over corresponding claims as mapped in table below of U.S. Patent No. 11368509 in view of Furbeck et al. (US 20120203867), in further view of Ozgur, US 20140095670. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim same subject matter or they are obvious variation of claims in US Patent 11368509.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, mapping of claims as follows:
Instant Application No. 17/842,490
U.S. Patent No. 11368509
Claims 21, 30, and 38 maps to
Combined claim 1, 2, and 4
Claim 24-27 and 33-36 maps to
Claim 8
Claim 29 maps to
Claim 2
Claim 1 of US Patent 11368509 claims inventive steps same as of the inventive steps in claims 21, 30, and 38 of instant application. However, claim 1 of US Patent 11368509 does not claim limitations, “receive, in a media metadata file that is different from the MPD; the decoding complexity variability indicator indicates a relative difference of a decoding complexity associated with the first segment in reference to a decoding complexity associated with a second segment, wherein the second segment is earlier in time than the first segment.”
Furbeck discloses, receive, in a media metadata file that is different from the MPD ([0027]-[0028], [0066] – when parameters are added or updated in an MPD file, an MPD delta file, which is a media metadata file, is delivered to the client).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to modify Ozgur with the teachings of Furbeck by enabling reception of the decoding complexity indicators in a file that is different from the MPD. The motivation for this modification would have been to enable this information to be added or updated in a manner that requires low bandwidth consumption (see Furbeck [0066]).
Claim 1 of US Patent 11368509 in view of Furbeck does not disclose, the decoding complexity variability indicator indicates a relative difference of a decoding complexity associated with the first segment in reference to a decoding complexity associated with a second segment, wherein the second segment is earlier in time than the first segment.
Ganesan discloses, the decoding complexity variability indicator indicates a relative difference of a decoding complexity associated with the first segment in reference to a decoding complexity associated with a second segment, wherein the second segment is earlier in time than the first segment (col. 4, line 11-16, fig. 4, variation in the target bit rates as a function of segment. In the illustrated embodiment, the segment 407 is allocated a higher bit rate than the segment 402. By controlling the allocation of the target bit rates among the segments, more bits can be allocated to segments with more complex video and less bits can be allocated to segments with less complex video. col. 5, line 12-27, encode the segments 670 and generate complexity information 640. In one embodiment, the complexity information 640 includes the average bit rate allocated to each of the segments 670, the encoder 610 is configured to operate rapidly to provide an indication of the relative complexity of each of the segments 670. i.e. complexity information allocated to each segment in form of relative differences between assigned bit rate between segments being higher or lower, previous segment or next segment as shown in fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to modify Claim 1 of US Patent 10237321 in view of Furbeck with the teachings of the decoding complexity variability indicator indicates a relative difference of a decoding complexity associated with the first segment in reference to a decoding complexity associated with a second segment, wherein the second segment is earlier in time than the first segment, as taught by Ganesan. The motivation for this would to have more flexibility in bit allocation to improve video quality while allowing for the compressed video to be streamed (see Ganesan col. 1, line, 50-53).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-25, 27-34, 36-38, 41 and 42 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ozgur, US 20140095670 (with support in provisional application 61/707,784), in view of Furbeck, US 20120203867, in further view of Ganesan et al, US 8571098.
As to claim 21 Ozgur discloses a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (Fig. 12), the WTRU comprising: a processor (Fig. 12) configured to:
receive a media presentation description (MPD) of dynamic adaptive streaming over hypertext transfer protocol (DASH) ([0042], [0045]);
receive, decoding complexity variability indicator associated with a first segment (Par. 0043 content-dependent energy or power parameters, referred to herein as energy characterization information, can be derived for streaming media, the energy characterization can be based on decoding complexity [0044-0045] – energy characterization information, a power usage indicator, is included for each representation, enables a mobile device to select a best possible multimedia format based on the power available to the mobile device. Page 299-302 of provisional application 61/707,784 discloses the amount of the processing required for decoding and rendering the content (i.e. decoding complexity) by providing multiple versions of same video at different quality level, decide which representations to, select and ensure that the video decoding and display rendering processes in the mobile terminal operate in a power efficient manner), wherein the decoding complexity variability indicator associated with a second segment (Par. 0045, Providing an energy characterization in a manifest file, such as the MPD metadata (i.e. energy characterization = decoding complexity indicator), enables a mobile device to select a best possible multimedia format based on the power available to the mobile device (i.e. multiple decoding complexity indicator is provided indicating different energy characterization or decoding complexity, having higher or lower relative decoding complexity, Page 300 of provisional application 61/707,784 discloses, Segments contain metadata to access, decode and present the included media content. Includes minimum and maximum power level value across different segments (i.e. first and second segment),
determine a video representation based on decoding complexity indicator associated with the first segment ([0045]-[0046], Page 299-300 of provisional application 61/707,784 discloses The client receives the manifest file (MPD) and requests segments and sub-segments corresponding to the various DASH representations, taking into account the energy/power characterization information in the MPD. The client may switch across different representations over random access points by continuously tracking the power consumption in the client terminal in an effort to save battery life and optimize user quality of experience (QolE), i.e. determining energy required or decoding complexity of video segment);
request the video representation; and decode the video representation ([0045]-[0048], Page 299-300 of provisional application 61/707,784 discloses The client receives the manifest file (MPD) and requests segments and sub-segments corresponding to the various DASH representations, taking into account the energy/power characterization information in the MPD. The client may switch across different representations over random access points by continuously tracking the power consumption in the client terminal in an effort to save battery life and optimize user quality of experience (QolE), i.e. determining energy required or decoding complexity of video segment and switching (i.e. by requesting) between different quality of representation).
Ozgur fails to disclose that the power usage indicator is received in a media metadata file that is different from the MPD.
However, Furbeck discloses providing changes to an MPD file by receiving a media metadata file that is different from the MPD ([0027]-[0028], [0066] – when parameters are added or updated in an MPD file, an MPD delta file, which is a media metadata file, is delivered to the client).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to modify Ozgur with the teachings of Furbeck by enabling reception of the decoding complexity indicators in a file that is different from the MPD. The motivation for this modification would have been to enable this information to be added or updated in a manner that requires low bandwidth consumption (see Furbeck [0066]).
Ozgur in view of Furbeck does not disclose, the decoding complexity variability indicator indicates a relative difference of a decoding complexity associated with the first segment in reference to a decoding complexity associated with a second segment, wherein the second segment is earlier in time than the first segment.
Ganesan discloses, the decoding complexity variability indicator indicates a relative difference of a decoding complexity associated with the first segment in reference to a decoding complexity associated with a second segment, wherein the second segment is earlier in time than the first segment (col. 4, line 11-16, fig. 4, variation in the target bit rates as a function of segment. In the illustrated embodiment, the segment 407 is allocated a higher bit rate than the segment 402. By controlling the allocation of the target bit rates among the segments, more bits can be allocated to segments with more complex video and less bits can be allocated to segments with less complex video. col. 5, line 12-27, encode the segments 670 and generate complexity information 640. In one embodiment, the complexity information 640 includes the average bit rate allocated to each of the segments 670, the encoder 610 is configured to operate rapidly to provide an indication of the relative complexity of each of the segments 670. i.e. complexity information allocated to each segment in form of relative differences between assigned bit rate between segments being higher or lower, previous segment or next segment as shown in fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to modify Ozgur in view of Furbeck with the teachings of Ganesan by the decoding complexity variability indicator indicates a relative difference of a decoding complexity associated with the first segment in reference to a decoding complexity associated with a second segment, wherein the second segment is earlier in time than the first segment. The motivation for this would to have more flexibility in bit allocation to improve video quality while allowing for the compressed video to be streamed (see Ganesan col. 1, line, 50-53).
As to claim 22 Furbeck discloses that the media metadata file has a file format that is different from a format of the MPD ([0066]).
As to claim 23 Furbeck discloses that a basis of the file format is ISO base media file format was well known in the art at the time of the invention ([0004] and [0066]).
As to claim 24 Ozgur discloses that the decoding complexity variability indicator indicates a predicted first power usage associated with decoding the video representation or indicates a second predicted power usage associated with displaying the video representation ([0043-0044], Page 299-300 of provisional application 61/707,784).
As to claim 25 Ozgur discloses that the decoding complexity variable indicator comprises a decoding power indicator, and the decoding power indicator indicates power consumption information associated with decoding the video representation ([043-0044], Page 299-300 of provisional application 61/707,784).
As to claim 27 Ozgur discloses that the decoding complexity variability indicator comprises a displaying power indicator, and the displaying power indicator indicates power consumption information associated with displaying the video representation ([0043-0044], Page 298-300 of provisional application 61/707,784).
As to claim 28 Ozgur discloses that the MPD indicates a plurality of representations, and wherein the video representation is one of the plurality of representations indicated in the MPD ([0044], Page 298-300 of provisional application 61/707,784).
As to claim 29 Ozgur discloses that the video representation is a first video representation, the decoding complexity variability indicator is a first decoding variability complexity indicator associated with the first video representation, and the processor is further configured to: determine a second decoding complexity variability indicator associated with a second video representation of the plurality of representations indicated in the MPD; and wherein the first video representation is determined further based on the second decoding complexity variability indicator, and wherein
the first video representation consumes a lesser amount of decoding power than the second video representation ([0043]-[0048], Page 298-300 of provisional application 61/707,784, minimum and maximum energy level value corresponds to a period, segment or sub-segment. The client may take in account the energy/power characterization information and switch across different representations over random access points by continuously tracking the power consumption in the client terminal in an effort to save battery life and optimize user quality of experience (QolE), i.e. determining energy required or decoding complexity of video segment and switching (i.e. by requesting) between first and second quality of representation, switching to save power = one quality uses less power compared to other quality representation).
As to claims 30-34 and 36-38 see rejection of claims 21-25 and 27-29, respectively.
As to claim 41, Ganesan discloses, wherein the relative difference is between the decoding complexity associated with the first segment and the decoding complexity associated with the second segment ((col. 4, line 11-16, fig. 4, variation in the target bit rates as a function of segment. In the illustrated embodiment, the segment 407 is allocated a higher bit rate than the segment 402. By controlling the allocation of the target bit rates among the segments, more bits can be allocated to segments with more complex video and less bits can be allocated to segments with less complex video. col. 5, line 12-27, encode the segments 670 and generate complexity information 640. In one embodiment, the complexity information 640 includes the average bit rate allocated to each of the segments 670, the encoder 610 is configured to operate rapidly to provide an indication of the relative complexity of each of the segments 670. i.e. complexity information allocated to each segment in form of relative differences between assigned bit rate between segments being higher or lower, previous segment or next segment as shown in fig. 4).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 AKSHAY DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
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, JOHN W MILLER can be reached at (571)272-7353. 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.
/A.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2422
/JOHN W MILLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights