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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment and RCE filed, 22 September 2026, of application filed, with the above serial number, on 01 October 2022 in which claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 21 have been amended and claim 22 has been added. Claims 1-22 are pending in the application.
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 3, 12 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. It is not clear if the ‘burst token accumulation to not accumulate’ is different from the amended independent claim ‘token draining to attempt to reduce an amount of available tokens’. The specification does not recite the tokens being different and it is not clear then if the claim further narrows the amended claims.
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, 3-20, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willars et al (hereinafter “Willars”, 2022/0394076) in view of Tourrilhes et al (hereinafter “Tourrilhes”, 2023/0198910).
As per Claim 1, Willars discloses an apparatus (at least paragraph 66; apparatus, 800) comprising:
an interface (at least paragraph 66; apparatus, 800, may include a processing circuitry (one or more than one processor), 802, coupled to an interface, 806) and
circuitry coupled to the interface (at least paragraph 66; processing circuitry (one or more than one processor), 802, coupled to an interface, 806), the circuitry to:
based on unavailability of media data of a first frame, provide fill data into a network data buffer to be transmitted to a receiver device (at least paragraph 62-63; monitoring of the transmitting buffer shows that the buffer-fill level remains below a certain value or is not increasing; the bitrate may be increased by at least one of: added redundancy (for example by using forward error correction), insertion of dummy data, reduction of compression, increase of frame rate, increase of resolution and increase of colour depth; paragraphs 26, 28-29, 35, 43-44, 55-56; increasing the bitrate (and in consequence improving quality of the streamed media) when the conditions improve; rate adaptation upwards at improving conditions. Probing for a higher media rate; using a network congestion control algorithm at the sender side to only send as much data as can be transferred without buffering in the network. In this implementation there may be a buffer at the transmitting side, buffer B4, and detecting the need to adapt is done based on when this buffer starts to increase) and
based on availability of media data of the first frame, provide the media data for the first frame into the network data buffer to be transmitted to the receiver device (at least paragraph 56-57, 65, 89; network supporting ECN indicating improved conditions so that media can be sent to the receiving buffer; the improvement of traffic conditions on the second bearer may be detected by detecting that the second bearer can sustain an increased bitrate of the non-essential part of the media stream; transmit the essential part of the media stream on a first bearer and the non-essential part of the media stream on a second bearer; probing for higher media rate with the lower priority bearer, the absence of ECN/L4S marking on packets indicates that it is safe to increase the media rate also on the higher priority bearer).
Willars fails to explicitly disclose wherein the fill data comprises data to cause token draining to attempt to reduce an amount of available tokens as a result of a burst of available increased transmit bandwidth.
However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Tourrilhes. Tourrilhes discloses, in an analogous art, rate limiting using a shaper and corresponding queue such that a scheduler can process packets no faster than the committed rate such that when a token bucket is full, new tokens are discarded to prevent burst of packets being transmitted, the policer may include a bursting mechanism that enables average bandwidth utilization across the bursts (at least paragraph 60-74, 82). 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 the use of Tourrilhes’ token discarding tokens from a full bucket with Willars as Tourrilhes teaches optimizing a burst size or bucket size for TCP congestion control so as to not exceed a packet commit rate when there are too many tokens in the bucket and would result in excess traffic, and using token bucket with active queue management in order to average out congestion, combined with Willars bitrate increase would be an obvious TCP congestion avoidance and transmission optimization with Tourrilhes’ token use. It would be obvious to substitute Willars’ transmitting random data such as dummy data in order to level out a buffer activity with Tourrilhes keeping/dropping of packets that also levels out buffer activity and if using a token bucket, including leaky token bucket, to help distribute transmission rates and not have excessive token accumulation which would then result in burstiness as Tourrilhes teaches.
As per Claim 3, 12. Willars fails to explicitly disclose wherein the provide fill data is to cause burst token accumulation to not accumulate based on increased available bandwidth to transmit media data (at least Tourrilhes paragraph 60-74, 82).
As per Claim 4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the fill data is to permit utilization of increased available bandwidth to transmit media data to prevent a burst and backoff scenario (at least paragraph 21-23, 54, 58-64; preventing burst of packets and buffers being drained; configured at a level that balances the risk of buffer overflow when set too high (when the transmitting end attempts to transmit more data than the network can handle packets will be lost at buffer overflow) with the risk of triggering bitrate adaptation too early when the second threshold is set too low; keeping fill level of buffer between two thresholds with bitrate increase by redundancy, dummy insertion etc).
As per Claim 5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the fill data comprises one or more of: spatial quality data for a second frame, temporal quality data for the second frame, zero fill, and/or a portion of a predictive frame for the second frame (at least paragraph 62-63; monitoring of the transmitting buffer shows that the buffer-fill level remains below a certain value or is not increasing; the bitrate may be increased by at least one of: added redundancy (for example by using forward error correction), insertion of dummy data, reduction of compression, increase of frame rate, increase of resolution and increase of colour depth).
As per Claim 6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the media comprises one or more of: video, image, and/or audio (at least paragraph 47-49; video).
As per Claim 7. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is to transmit a higher quality level of media in the fill data based on availability of increased available bandwidth for N number of transmitted packets (at least paragraph 28, 43, 56; increasing the bitrate (and in consequence improving quality of the streamed media) of packets when the conditions improve).
As per Claim 8. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is to provide the fill data into the network data buffer based on information conveyed in-network telemetry (INT) (at least paragraph 24, 87-89, 84; ECN and L4S).
As per Claim 9. The apparatus of claim 1, comprising: a server communicatively the circuitry, wherein the server is to provide the media for transmission (at least paragraph 42, 49; Fig. 10).
As per Claim 10. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the receiver device comprises a client device that executes a media player (at least Fig. 10; par. 44, 80-81; App client of player; AR/VR “XR” applications with remote rendering to a head-mounted display (HMD)).
As per Claim 11, Willars discloses at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon, that if executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
based on unavailability of media data of a first frame, provide fill data into a network data buffer to be transmitted to a receiver device (at least paragraph 62-63; monitoring of the transmitting buffer shows that the buffer-fill level remains below a certain value or is not increasing; the bitrate may be increased by at least one of: added redundancy (for example by using forward error correction), insertion of dummy data, reduction of compression, increase of frame rate, increase of resolution and increase of colour depth; paragraphs 26, 28-29, 35, 43-44, 55-56; increasing the bitrate (and in consequence improving quality of the streamed media) when the conditions improve; rate adaptation upwards at improving conditions. Probing for a higher media rate; using a network congestion control algorithm at the sender side to only send as much data as can be transferred without buffering in the network. In this implementation there may be a buffer at the transmitting side, buffer B4, and detecting the need to adapt is done based on when this buffer starts to increase) and
based on availability of media data of the first frame, provide the media data for the first frame into the network data buffer to be transmitted to the receiver device (at least paragraph 56-57, 65, 89; network supporting ECN indicating improved conditions so that media can be sent to the receiving buffer; the improvement of traffic conditions on the second bearer may be detected by detecting that the second bearer can sustain an increased bitrate of the non-essential part of the media stream; transmit the essential part of the media stream on a first bearer and the non-essential part of the media stream on a second bearer; probing for higher media rate with the lower priority bearer, the absence of ECN/L4S marking on packets indicates that it is safe to increase the media rate also on the higher priority bearer).
Willars fails to explicitly disclose wherein the fill data comprises data to cause token draining to attempt to reduce an amount of available tokens as a result of a burst of available increased transmit bandwidth.
However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Tourrilhes. Tourrilhes discloses, in an analogous art, rate limiting using a shaper and corresponding queue such that a scheduler can process packets no faster than the committed rate such that when a token bucket is full, new tokens are discarded to prevent burst of packets being transmitted, the policer may include a bursting mechanism that enables average bandwidth utilization across the bursts (at least paragraph 60-74, 82). 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 the use of Tourrilhes’ token discarding tokens from a full bucket with Willars as Tourrilhes teaches optimizing a burst size or bucket size for TCP congestion control so as to not exceed a packet commit rate when there are too many tokens in the bucket and would result in excess traffic, and using token bucket with active queue management in order to average out congestion, combined with Willars bitrate increase would be an obvious TCP congestion avoidance and transmission optimization with Tourrilhes’ token use. It would be obvious to substitute Willars’ transmitting random data such as dummy data in order to level out a buffer activity with Tourrilhes keeping/dropping of packets that also levels out buffer activity and if using a token bucket, including leaky token bucket, to help distribute transmission rates and not have excessive token accumulation which would then result in burstiness as Tourrilhes teaches.
As per Claim 13. The computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the fill data is to permit utilization of increased available bandwidth to transmit media data to prevent a burst and backoff scenario (at least paragraph 21-23, 54, 58-64; preventing burst of packets and buffers being drained; configured at a level that balances the risk of buffer overflow when set too high (when the transmitting end attempts to transmit more data than the network can handle packets will be lost at buffer overflow) with the risk of triggering bitrate adaptation too early when the second threshold is set too low; keeping fill level of buffer between two thresholds with bitrate increase by redundancy, dummy insertion etc).
As per Claim 14. The computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the fill data comprises one or more of: spatial quality data for a second frame, temporal quality data for the second frame, zero fill, and/or portion of a predictive frame for the second frame (at least paragraph 62-63; monitoring of the transmitting buffer shows that the buffer-fill level remains below a certain value or is not increasing; the bitrate may be increased by at least one of: added redundancy (for example by using forward error correction), insertion of dummy data, reduction of compression, increase of frame rate, increase of resolution and increase of colour depth).
As per Claim 15. The computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the media comprises one or more of: video, image, and/or audio (at least paragraph 47-49; video).
As per Claim 16. The computer-readable medium of claim 11, comprising instructions stored thereon, that if executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: cause transmission of a higher quality level of media based on availability of increased available bandwidth for N number of transmitted packets (at least paragraph 28, 43, 56; increasing the bitrate (and in consequence improving quality of the streamed media) of packets when the conditions improve).
As per Claim 17, Willars discloses a method comprising:
based on unavailability of media data of a first frame, providing fill data into a network data buffer for transmission to a receiver device (at least paragraph 62-63; monitoring of the transmitting buffer shows that the buffer-fill level remains below a certain value or is not increasing; the bitrate may be increased by at least one of: added redundancy (for example by using forward error correction), insertion of dummy data, reduction of compression, increase of frame rate, increase of resolution and increase of colour depth; paragraphs 26, 28-29, 35, 43-44, 55-56; increasing the bitrate (and in consequence improving quality of the streamed media) when the conditions improve; rate adaptation upwards at improving conditions. Probing for a higher media rate; using a network congestion control algorithm at the sender side to only send as much data as can be transferred without buffering in the network. In this implementation there may be a buffer at the transmitting side, buffer B4, and detecting the need to adapt is done based on when this buffer starts to increase) and
based on availability of media data of the first frame, providing the media data for the first frame into the network data buffer to be transmitted to the receiver device (at least paragraph 56-57, 65, 89; network supporting ECN indicating improved conditions so that media can be sent to the receiving buffer; the improvement of traffic conditions on the second bearer may be detected by detecting that the second bearer can sustain an increased bitrate of the non-essential part of the media stream; transmit the essential part of the media stream on a first bearer and the non-essential part of the media stream on a second bearer; probing for higher media rate with the lower priority bearer, the absence of ECN/L4S marking on packets indicates that it is safe to increase the media rate also on the higher priority bearer).
Willars fails to explicitly disclose wherein the fill data comprises data to cause token draining to attempt to reduce an amount of available tokens as a result of a burst of available increased transmit bandwidth.
However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Tourrilhes. Tourrilhes discloses, in an analogous art, rate limiting using a shaper and corresponding queue such that a scheduler can process packets no faster than the committed rate such that when a token bucket is full, new tokens are discarded to prevent burst of packets being transmitted, the policer may include a bursting mechanism that enables average bandwidth utilization across the bursts (at least paragraph 60-74, 82). 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 the use of Tourrilhes’ token discarding tokens from a full bucket with Willars as Tourrilhes teaches optimizing a burst size or bucket size for TCP congestion control so as to not exceed a packet commit rate when there are too many tokens in the bucket and would result in excess traffic, and using token bucket with active queue management in order to average out congestion, combined with Willars bitrate increase would be an obvious TCP congestion avoidance and transmission optimization with Tourrilhes’ token use. It would be obvious to substitute Willars’ transmitting random data such as dummy data in order to level out a buffer activity with Tourrilhes keeping/dropping of packets that also levels out buffer activity and if using a token bucket, including leaky token bucket, to help distribute transmission rates and not have excessive token accumulation which would then result in burstiness as Tourrilhes teaches.
As per Claim 18. The method of claim 17, wherein the fill data is to permit utilization of increased available bandwidth to transmit media data to prevent a burst and backoff scenario (at least paragraph 21-23, 54, 58-64; preventing burst of packets and buffers being drained; configured at a level that balances the risk of buffer overflow when set too high (when the transmitting end attempts to transmit more data than the network can handle packets will be lost at buffer overflow) with the risk of triggering bitrate adaptation too early when the second threshold is set too low; keeping fill level of buffer between two thresholds with bitrate increase by redundancy, dummy insertion etc).
As per Claim 19. The method of claim 17, wherein the fill data comprises one or more of: spatial quality data for a second frame, temporal quality data for the second frame, zero fill, and/or portion of a predictive frame for the second frame (at least paragraph 62-63; monitoring of the transmitting buffer shows that the buffer-fill level remains below a certain value or is not increasing; the bitrate may be increased by at least one of: added redundancy (for example by using forward error correction), insertion of dummy data, reduction of compression, increase of frame rate, increase of resolution and increase of colour depth).
As per Claim 20. The method of claim 17, comprising: causing transmission of a higher quality level of media based on availability of increased available bandwidth for N number of transmitted packets (at least paragraph 28, 43, 56; increasing the bitrate (and in consequence improving quality of the streamed media) of packets when the conditions improve).
As per Claim 22. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the fill data comprises zero-fill data (at least paragraph 62-63; monitoring of the transmitting buffer shows that the buffer-fill level remains below a certain value or is not increasing; the bitrate may be increased by at least one of: added redundancy (for example by using forward error correction), insertion of dummy data, reduction of compression, increase of frame rate, increase of resolution and increase of colour depth).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willars in view of Tourrilhes, further in view of Terzis et al (hereinafter “Terzis”, 10,075,877).
Willars / Tourrilhes fails to explicitly disclose wherein the circuitry is to adjust transmission bandwidth for media data by adjusting a size of a congestion window. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Terzis. Terzis discloses, in an analogous art, it being well known that the transmission protocol TCP calculates and adjusts a congestion window in order to adjust data rate according to available bandwidth (at least col. 9:57-10:39). 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 the use of Terzis’ congestion window with Willars / Tourrilhes as Terzis discloses TCP data transmission from a sending device incorporating congestion window calculation and adjustment in order to achieve an optimal data rate to send packets over the network, and this would be used in Willars TCP (at least paragraph 55, 22) feedback packets with acknowledgments from the receiver to monitor the round-trip delay and reduce the sending bitrate in response to any increase in that delay.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willars in view of Tourrilhes, further in view of Au et al (hereinafter “Au”, 2015/0026747).
Willars fails to explicitly disclose wherein: the fill data comprises a Predictive frame (P-frame) transmitted prior to acknowledgement by a client or Intra-coded frame (I-frame). However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Au. Au discloses, in an analogous stream switching art, different encoded versions of media data can be switched to according to network characteristics such that a switch can be to a different higher quality version of the next frame being an I-frame, as is typical, or a P-frame (at least paragraph 26, 31-36, 40, Fig. 3). 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 the use of Au’s stream switch with Willars/ Tourrilhes as Willars discloses using MPEG-DASH which is an adaptive media streaming art that adapts by switching quality based on, for example, network bandwidth, Willars streaming using MPEG being keyframe and dependent frame based, and Au explicitly recites that such switching be on a next I-frame or P-frame as would be encountered in the MPEG art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues Willars to not disclose token draining in response to a burst of available tokens, however, the claim amendment recites the burst to be of available bandwidth.
Applicant has not fully responded to the 103 Rejection of claim 21 nor the prior art not disclosing new claim 22.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is indicated in PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY TODD whose telephone number is (303)297-4763. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Nicholas Taylor can be reached on 571-272-3889. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREGORY TODD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
