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 .
All objections/rejections not mentioned in this Office Action have been withdrawn by the Examiner.
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 .
All objections/rejections not mentioned in this Office Action have been withdrawn by the Examiner.
Status of the Claims
Prior to entry of the amendment(s) and/or consideration of the argument(s), the status of the claims is as follows.
Claim(s) 1-18 and 20-30 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 20 is/are objected to as being dependent from a cancelled base claim.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 9-13, 16-18, 26, and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Srivastava (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2022/0224442, hereinafter Srivastava).
Claims 3-4, 8, 20-21 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Chia (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2005/0044471, hereinafter Chia).
Claims 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2005/0276235, hereinafter Lee).
Claims 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Davies (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2018/0315438, hereinafter Davies).
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment filed on 06 March 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claim(s), the amendment of claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 18, 20, and 29-30 and the cancellation of claim(s) 2 have been acknowledged and entered.
After entry of the amendment, Claim(s) 1, 3-18, and 20-31 remain pending.
In view of the amendment to claim 20, the objection to claim 20 is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim(s) 1, 18, and 29-30 and the cancellation of claim(s) 2, the rejection of claims 1-18 and 20-30 under 35 U.S.C. §102 and 35 U.S.C. §103 is withdrawn.
In light of the amended claims, new grounds for rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 are provided in the action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102/103, see pages 8-17 of the Response to Final Office Action dated 20 November 2025, which was received on 06 March 2026 (hereinafter Response and Office Action, respectively), have been fully considered.
Of note, numerous arguments which are directed to anticipated combinations of references and/or interpreted limitations of the references are made in the arguments presented in the Response. However, insofar as these arguments do not address the rejections as presented in the Office Action, said arguments are taken under advisement without further comment as to the veracity of the claims made. Said arguments are not conceded without express recitation to the contrary.
With respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, and mutatis mutandis claim 29, under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Srivastava (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2022/0224442, hereinafter Srivastava), applicant asserts that Srivastava fails to teach or suggest all limitations of amended independent claims 1 and 29. Applicant’s arguments in light of the amendments to the claims are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections of claims 1 and 29 are withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 18, and mutatis mutandis claim 30, under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Srivastava, applicant asserts that Srivastava fails to teach or suggest all limitations of amended independent claims 18 and 30. Applicant’s arguments in light of the amendments to the claims are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections of claims 18 and 30 are withdrawn.
Applicant further argues that the rejection(s) of dependent claims 2-17 and 20-28 should be withdrawn for at least the same reasons as independent claims 1, 18, 29, and 30. Applicant’s arguments in light of the amended claims are persuasive. As such, the rejections of claims 2-17 and 20-28 under 35 U.S.C. §102 and 35 U.S.C. §103 are withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 are made in light of combinations of Srivastava, Chia, Lee, and Davies, and newly cited references Ikeda (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2012/0182859, hereinafter Ikeda) and Reibman (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2018/0192092, hereinafter Reibman).
The Applicant has not provided any further statement and therefore, the Examiner directs the Applicant to the below rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 3-7, 9-13, 16-18, 20-21, 26, and 28-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava in view of Ikeda and Reibman.
Regarding claim 1, Srivastava discloses A method for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE) (Systems and methods described with reference to "semantic network data correction"; Srivastava, ¶ [0033]), comprising: receiving an indication of a semantic model to use for processing data packets to be received at the UE, ("At the receiver 150, the processing circuitry 140 is configured to receive—for example, from the network interface 135—the semantic data 110 corresponding to the data stream 120" where "the sender 105 is configured to extract the semantic data 110 from the data stream 120 before transmission." The semantic data incorporates the meaning embedded in the information transmitted and said semantic data comprises an indication of a semantic model, described as "compact codes" which "signal to the receiver how a missing packet may be inferred," and, as described with reference to an example, the receiving device receives an indication, through the received semantic data, to use the specified "applicable feature sets" or "interpolation logic" where the application is part of the UE, and the semantic codes and logic (derived from the supervised learning model in [0049]) that control the interpolation constitute the semantic model. The interpolation is simply the mechanism of generation used by the semantic model.; Srivastava, ¶ [0036], [0044], [0049], [0062]) wherein the semantic model is determinative of incomplete audio data ("semantic data 110" is extracted "from the data stream 120 by, for example, the sender 105 or by an originator of the data in the data stream 120" where "the sender 105 is configured to extract the semantic data 110 from the data stream 120 before transmission" and where "packets... may be graded in value" as determined "based on the semantic data," which can result in "deprioritization" (e.g., dropped or missing packets) and the interpolation/extrapolation logic is selected based on the packets in light of the semantic data; Srivastava, ¶ [0036], [0044], [0049], [0062]) based on a meaning of known audio data (the semantic data incorporates the "meaning embedded in the information transmitted" and where the information transmitted is applied to grade the packets.; Srivastava, ¶ [0036], [0019], [0041]); receiving a set of data packets that encodes a first portion of a sequence of audio data ("At the receiver 150, the processing circuitry 140 is configured to receive... the semantic data 110 corresponding to the data stream 120" and "the data stream 120" comprising packets, where "The data stream 120 includes the data being transferred from the sender 105 to the receiver 150 on a first channel 125."; Srivastava, ¶ [0036]-[0037], [0062]); receiving…[an indication] that one or more data packets encoding a second portion of the sequence of audio data have been dropped… ("When actual data packet is found missing, the codes in the alternate packet signal to the receiver how a missing packet may be inferred by interpolation between surrounding packets, or by extrapolation from previous N packets," where the codes signaling to the receiver about how to replace a missing packet is also an indication that one or more packets have been dropped when viewed in combination with the data stream, and where the existence of a missing packet can include an audio packet being dropped.; Srivastava, ¶ [0062]); and generating, using the semantic model and one or more data packets of the set of data packets, the second portion of the sequence of audio data ("When [an] actual data packet is found missing, the codes in the alternate packet signal to the receiver how a missing packet may be inferred by interpolation between surrounding packets, or by extrapolation from previous N packets," where "may be done when content is interpolation/extrapolation amenable" for "speech packets in which missing information may be filled in by a receiver side processing circuitry based on guidance from the sender side" where "packets... may be degraded in value" as determined "based on the semantic data," which results in "deprioritization" (e.g., dropped or missing packets) and the semantic model provides the relied on semantic data.; Srivastava, ¶ [0062]) based on failing to receive the second portion, (Teaches that "the codes in the alternate packet...may be inferred by interpolation between surrounding packets, or by extrapolation from previous N packets" based on the "actual data packet" being "found missing," where "missing information may be filled in by a receiver side process circuitry" and explicitly states that the filling is performed for "speech packets"; Srivastava, ¶ [0062]) wherein the second portion is in addition to the first portion (The missing information of the deprioritized packet(s) is distinct from the surround/previous packets.; Srivastava, ¶ [0062]), and wherein the second portion is generated using the semantic model based at least in part on…[the indication] that the one or more data packets encoding the second portion have been dropped… (In this case, the second portion would be generated based on the codes in the alternate packet, and "correcting the error using the semantic data includes providing the semantic data" to an application, which may be a "neural network" which "is trained to produce a correct version of the packet" and where the "error is corrected as each packet is received" where the sender is described generically as a server or a server machine, which in the context of transmitting media, is understood as a media server; Srivastava, ¶ [0062], [0068], [0097]-[0098], [0100]). However, Srivastava fails to expressly recite receiving a message indicating that one or more data packets encoding a second portion of the sequence of audio data have been dropped by a media server.
Ikeda teaches packet recovery systems and methods incorporating messaging for intentionally dropped packets. (Ikeda, ¶ [0001], [0013]). Regarding claim 1, Ikeda teaches receiving a message indicating that one or more data packets encoding a second portion of the sequence of audio data have been dropped… ("the PGW 200" can "discard target packets (step S206)," and "a Packet Discard notification message (Discard notification) is transmitted to the UE 100 (step S207)"; Ikeda, ¶ [0078]) [wherein the indication is]...the message indicating that the one or more data packets encoding the second portion have been dropped ("The UE 100 that received the Packet Discard notification message performs recovery processing on the discarded packets" where the recovery processing can include "the discarded packet" being "estimated and generated from data already received to regenerate the entire data", such as by data interpolation, or by other methods incorporating "contents extracted from previous and following packets"; Ikeda, ¶ [0078], [0080], [0097]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the semantic network data correction of Srivastava to incorporate the teachings of Ikeda to include receiving a message indicating that one or more data packets encoding a second portion of the sequence of audio data have been dropped… [wherein the indication is]...the message indicating that the one or more data packets encoding the second portion have been dropped. Srivastava discloses systems and methods for recovering lost audio packets using a semantic model, but fails to recite explicit messaging to indicate the drop. Ikeda discloses a packet recovery system and method where “when the packet is actually discarded, the mobile terminal as the packet receiving node is notified thereof” allowing the system to recover the lost packet through known recovery means, “so that the mobile terminal can improve communication efficiency without wasting retransmission latency in vain,” which provides the known benefit of reducing unnecessary network traffic, as recognized by Ikeda. (Ikeda, ¶ [0012]-[0013]). However, Srivastava and Ikeda fail to expressly recite wherein the one or more packets have been dropped by a media server.
Reibman teaches “a system, network device and method directed to prioritizing wireless packets forming a media stream and reducing overhead.” (Reibman, ¶ [0002]). Regarding claim 1, Reibman teaches wherein one or more data packets encoding a second portion of the sequence of audio data have been dropped by a media server (Discloses a "management system 130" which can be "part of a communication device that is transmitting or receiving the video, including an STB, a service provider server, a mobile communication device, and so forth" where video is understood to refer to both video and audio content in conjunction, where "the management system 130 can be used to alleviate traffic congestion or otherwise reduce the number of packets being transported for a video" by "predict[ing] which (if any) packets" may be "otherwise dropped based on the scene information" and "then drop[ping] the selected packets".; Reibman, ¶ [0014], [0022]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the semantic network data correction of Srivastava , as modified by the dropped packet messaging systems of Ikeda, to incorporate the teachings of Reibman to include wherein one or more data packets encoding a second portion of the sequence of audio data have been dropped by a media server. Srivastava discloses systems and methods for recovering lost audio packets using a semantic model, but fails to recite explicit messaging to indicate the drop. Ikeda discloses a packet recovery system and method, including both intentionally dropped packets and explicit messages. However, Ikeda teaches said dropped packets occur at the gateway, rather than as part of the media center. Reibman discloses intentionally dropping packets and subsequent packet recovery as part of an integrated server architecture, which allows the media source to proactively manage its own downstream network congestion and drop packets prior to transport, thereby efficiently maintaining a desired quality of video” without relying on separate downstream middleboxes and simultaneously reducing unnecessary traffic between the media server and the middlebox, as recognized by Reibman. (Reibman, ¶ [0022], [0062]).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Srivastava, Ikeda, and Reibman discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Srivastava fails to expressly recite wherein receiving the indication that the one or more data packets have been dropped comprises: receiving, in one or more data packets of the received set of data packets, a field including the indication that the one or more data packets have been dropped.
The relevance of Ikeda is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 3, Ikeda teaches wherein receiving the indication that the one or more data packets have been dropped comprises: receiving, in one or more data packets of the received set of data packets, a field including the indication that the one or more data packets have been dropped ("the packet discard notification message... is not necessarily a single message, and the message may be any other message having a field including information indicative of the discard of a packet" where, as explained with reference to an example, "the field including information indicative of the discard of a packet... may be superimposed onto another message for any other purpose"; Ikeda, ¶ [0078], [0242]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the semantic network data correction of Srivastava to incorporate the teachings of Ikeda to include wherein receiving the indication that the one or more data packets have been dropped comprises: receiving, in one or more data packets of the received set of data packets, a field including the indication that the one or more data packets have been dropped. Srivastava discloses systems and methods for recovering lost audio packets using a semantic model, but fails to recite explicit messaging to indicate the drop. Ikeda discloses a packet recovery system and method where “when the packet is actually discarded, the mobile terminal as the packet receiving node is notified thereof” allowing the system to recover the lost packet through known recovery means, “so that the mobile terminal can improve communication efficiency without wasting retransmission latency in vain,” which provides the known benefit of reducing unnecessary network traffic, as recognized by Ikeda. (Ikeda, ¶ [0012]-[0013]).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Srivastava, Ikeda, and Reibman discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Srivastava fails to expressly recite wherein the field comprises a bit flag.
The relevance of Ikeda is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 4, Ikeda teaches wherein the field comprises a bit flag (regarding "receiving and not receiving a packet discard notification" the system includes that "a packet discard notification flag" may be "set to ON" or "set to OFF" and where the discard notification can be a "field...indicative of the discard of a packet" which is "superimposed onto another message"; Ikeda, ¶ [0065], [0078], [0242]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the semantic network data correction of Srivastava to incorporate the teachings of Ikeda to include wherein the field comprises a bit flag. Srivastava discloses systems and methods for recovering lost audio packets using a semantic model, but fails to recite explicit messaging to indicate the drop. Ikeda discloses a packet recovery system and method where “when the packet is actually discarded, the mobile terminal as the packet receiving node is notified thereof” allowing the system to recover the lost packet through known recovery means, “so that the mobile terminal can improve communication efficiency without wasting retransmission latency in vain,” which provides the known benefit of reducing unnecessary network traffic, as recognized by Ikeda. (Ikeda, ¶ [0012]-[0013]).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Srivastava, Ikeda, and Reibman discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Srivastava further discloses further comprising: decoding the received set of data packets to identify the first portion of the sequence of audio data ("semantic data is received along with packet data (operation 505)" and an "integrity check on the received data is performed (operation 510) to detect errors" which includes a decoding of the received set of data packets, and where the sequence of data packets can be divided into data packets which can be properly decoded and data packets which are "found missing"; Srivastava, ¶ [0056], [0062]); and determining, based at least in part on decoding the received set of data packets, that the one or more data packets encoding the second portion have not been decoded, (The integrity check determines that one or more portions of the data is invalid, where dropped data cannot be properly decoded.; Srivastava, ¶ [0056]; [0062]) wherein the second portion is generated using the semantic model based at least in part on determining that the one or more data packets have not been decoded ("Once the semantic data 110 is received, the processing circuitry 140 is configured to use the semantic data 110 to correct the error in the data stream 120" where, in one example, the system includes "correcting the error using the semantic data 110" by "providing the semantic data 110 and the packet with the error from the data stream 120 to a neural network... trained to produce a correct version of the packet"; Srivastava, ¶ [0056], [0062]).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Srivastava, Ikeda, and Reibman discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Srivastava further discloses further comprising: refraining from transmitting a retransmission request for the one or more data packets encoding the second portion (Though not expressly recited as “refraining from transmitting a retransmission request”, the disclosure describes the benefits of this system over the prior art with relation to avoiding retransmission requests (e.g., “systems and techniques also reduce network congestion due to retransmissions via the more effective data error correction”), where successful reconstruction is understood to directly correlate with refraining from transmitting a retransmission request.; Srivastava, ¶ [0032]).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Srivastava, Ikeda, and Reibman discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Srivastava further discloses further comprising: receiving, in one or more data packets of the set of data packets, an indication that the one or more data packets are usable to generate the second portion using the semantic model, (“At the receiver 150, the processing circuitry 140 is configured to receive—for example, from the network interface 135—the semantic data 110 corresponding to the data stream 120” where the semantic data incorporates the “meaning embedded in the information transmitted” and said semantic data comprises an indication of whether one or more data packets are usable (as shown with relation to the decision to deprioritize (drop), and where the “compact codes” are applied to determine that the dropped packet can be resolved through “interpolation between surrounding packets, or by extrapolation from previous N packets,” which otherwise would have required retransmission to resolve.); Srivastava, ¶ [0029], [0036], [0062]) wherein the second portion is generated using the semantic model based at least in part on receiving the indication that the one or more data packets are usable (In the example, by signaling that interpolation should be performed using surrounding packets, the system is indicating that those specific surrounding packets are usable for the generation, and the second portion is generated based on the process and data indicated the “compact codes”; Srivastava, ¶ [0029], [0036], [0062]).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Srivastava, Ikeda, and Reibman discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Srivastava further discloses wherein generating the second portion comprises: using audio data of the first portion that is prior to the second portion to generate the second portion using the semantic model (When the “data packet is found missing” based on the sender making a determination of deprioritization, “the codes in the alternate packet signal to the receiver how a missing packet may be inferred by interpolation between surrounding packets, or by extrapolation from previous N packets,” where “surrounding packets” includes packets both before and after the missing packet and “previous N packets” references N packets occurring before the missing packet.; Srivastava, ¶ [0062]).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Srivastava, Ikeda, and Reibman discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Srivastava further discloses further comprising: receiving a second set of data packets that encode a sequence of video data (“the semantic data 110” can include “the context, such as location, application, scenario, in which the data stream is produced” where “significant video, audio, or location data generated by sensors… may be concisely contextualized.”; Srivastava, ¶ [0041]); and generating the second portion based at least in part on processing the sequence of video data using the semantic model (the semantic data, incorporating the context, can be “used as an input to an artificial neural network (e.g., ANN, neural network, etc.) along with the data stream 120” and the system/method corrects the error by, in part, “providing the semantic data 110 and the packet with the error from the data stream 120 to a neural network implemented by the processing circuitry 140.”; Srivastava, ¶ [0041]).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Srivastava, Ikeda, and Reibman discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Srivastava further discloses wherein the second portion is generated based at least in part on an environment encoded in the sequence of video data, objects displayed in the environment, arrangements of objects displayed in the environment, or any combination thereof (The video, as used in the semantic data generation, includes video generated from “...object tracking, video surveillance, connected cars, etc.” which is collected “in real-time or near real-time”, as well as “significant video... generated by sensors in a vehicle” through which a “vehicle accident” can be “concisely contextualized”, where the video which contextualizes a vehicle accident is an environment encoded in the sequence of video data, vehicles as disposed within the environment is objects displayed in the environment, and the position of vehicles in the context of the scene of a vehicle accident is an arrangement of objects displayed in the environment, and where said semantic data is employed in generation of the missing packet; Srivastava, ¶ [0092], [0041], [0062]).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Srivastava, Ikeda, and Reibman discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Srivastava further discloses wherein receiving the indication of the semantic model comprises: receiving the indication of the semantic model during a communication session setup procedure (The semantic data may be transferred alongside the data stream where “The base station also has the shared knowledge base—previously shared with a UE at setup time—that serves to guide the decoding and extraction 420 (e.g., deconstruction) of semantic information from received packets.” As such, the semantic data is received during the communication session setup procedure.; Srivastava, ¶ [0035], [0051]).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Srivastava, Ikeda, and Reibman discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Srivastava further discloses wherein receiving the indication of the semantic model comprises: receiving the indication of the semantic model via session initiation protocol (SIP) signaling (Discloses the sender, in one example, as “a cellular base station (e.g., a gNodeB in accordance with the 3GPP 5G nomenclature)” where a gNodeB incorporates SIP signaling, and where SIP signaling is a well-known application layer protocol for use in a wide variety of communications (e.g., P-Access-Network-Info header in SIP messages carries information about the access network technology used by the UE, and, in 5G, this header is used to indicate that the UE is connected to the 5G network (gNodeB).) As the sender and receiver incorporate this signaling for establishing, managing, and terminating sessions, receiving the indication of the semantic model is understood to occur, at least in part, via SIP signaling.; Srivastava, ¶ [0034]).
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Srivastava, Ikeda, and Reibman discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Srivastava further discloses wherein receiving the indication of the semantic model comprises: receiving the indication of the semantic model that corresponds to a genre of music or a type of audio data (Discloses the semantic data being generated corresponding to “audio... generated by sensors in a vehicle accident”, where said audio is understood as environmental audio, and where environmental audio is a type of audio.; Srivastava, ¶ [0041]).
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Srivastava, Ikeda, and Reibman discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Srivastava further discloses wherein the sequence of audio data encodes music, sound effects, extended reality (XR) audio, or a combination thereof (Discloses packet reconstruction techniques, as explained above, in the context of “virtual reality (VR)” and “mixed reality (MR)” audio; Srivastava, ¶ [0017]).
Regarding claim 18, Srivastava discloses A method for wireless communications at a media server (Systems and methods described with reference to "semantic network data correction" with respect to a sender 105; Srivastava, ¶ [0033]-[0034]), comprising: outputting an indication of a semantic model to use for processing data packets to be received at a user equipment (UE), ("The data stream 120 includes...the semantic data 110" which is "transmitted on a second channel 115" where "the sender 105 is configured to extract the semantic data 110 from the data stream 120 before transmission" where the semantic data incorporates the meaning embedded in the information transmitted and said semantic data comprises an indication of a semantic model, described as "compact codes" which "signal to the receiver how a missing packet may be inferred," and, as described with reference to an example, the receiving device receives an indication, through the received semantic data, to use the specified "applicable feature sets" or "interpolation logic" where the application is part of the UE, and the semantic codes and logic (derived from the supervised learning model in [0049]) that control the interpolation constitute the semantic model. The interpolation is simply the mechanism of generation used by the semantic model.; Srivastava, ¶ [0035]-[0036]; [0049], [0062]) wherein the semantic model is determinative of incomplete audio data ("semantic data 110" is extracted "from the data stream 120 by, for example, the sender 105 or by an originator of the data in the data stream 120" where "the sender 105 is configured to extract the semantic data 110 from the data stream 120 before transmission" and where "packets... may be graded in value" as determined "based on the semantic data," which can result in "deprioritization" (e.g., dropped or missing packets) and the interpolation/extrapolation logic is selected based on the packets in light of the semantic data; Srivastava, ¶ [0036], [0044], [0049], [0062]) based on a meaning of known audio data (the semantic data incorporates the "meaning embedded in the information transmitted" and where the information transmitted is applied to grade the packets.; Srivastava, ¶ [0036], [0019], [0062]); encoding, using the semantic model, a sequence of audio data into a set of data packets ("The data stream 120 includes the data being transferred from the sender 105 to the receiver 150 on a first channel 125" where the data stream is encoded as data packets including "very compact codes, which are then piggybacked on alternate packets"; Srivastava, ¶ [0035]-[0036]; [0062]) ; outputting at least a subset of the set of data packets (The data packets of the data stream or portions thereof are output from the sender 105 to the receiver 150.; Srivastava, ¶ [0035]-[0036]; [0062]). However, Srivastava fails to expressly recite dropping one or more data packets of the set of data packets; and outputting an indication that the one or more data packets encoding the sequence of audio data have been dropped by the media server.
The relevance of Ikeda is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 18, Ikeda teaches dropping one or more data packets of the set of data packets ("the PGW 200" can "discard target packets (step S206)," and "a Packet Discard notification message (Discard notification) is transmitted to the UE 100 (step S207)"; Ikeda, ¶ [0078]); and outputting an indication that the one or more data packets encoding the sequence of audio data have been dropped… ("the PGW 200" can "discard target packets (step S206)," such as "when a flow of packets exceeding MBR or AMBR due to congestion of incoming packets or the like are detected" and "a Packet Discard notification message (Discard notification) is transmitted to the UE 100 (step S207)"; Ikeda, ¶ [0078]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the semantic network data correction of Srivastava to incorporate the teachings of Ikeda to include dropping one or more data packets of the set of data packets; and outputting an indication that the one or more data packets encoding the sequence of audio data have been dropped. Srivastava discloses systems and methods for recovering lost audio packets using a semantic model, but fails to recite explicit messaging to indicate the drop. Ikeda discloses a packet recovery system and method where “when the packet is actually discarded, the mobile terminal as the packet receiving node is notified thereof” allowing the system to recover the lost packet through known recovery means, “so that the mobile terminal can improve communication efficiency without wasting retransmission latency in vain,” which provides the known benefit of reducing unnecessary network traffic, as recognized by Ikeda. (Ikeda, ¶ [0012]-[0013]). However, Srivastava and Ikeda fail to expressly recite wherein one or more data packets encoding a second portion of the sequence of audio data have been dropped by a media server.
The relevance of Reibman is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 18, Reibman teaches wherein one or more data packets encoding the sequence of audio data have been dropped by a media server (Discloses a "management system 130" which can be "part of a communication device that is transmitting or receiving the video, including an STB, a service provider server, a mobile communication device, and so forth" where video is understood to refer to both video and audio content in conjunction, where "the management system 130 can be used to alleviate traffic congestion or otherwise reduce the number of packets being transported for a video" by "predict[ing] which (if any) packets" may be "otherwise dropped based on the scene information" and "then drop[ping] the selected packets".; Reibman, ¶ [0014], [0022]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the semantic network data correction of Srivastava , as modified by the dropped packet messaging systems of Ikeda, to incorporate the teachings of Reibman to include wherein one or more data packets encoding a second portion of the sequence of audio data have been dropped by a media server. Srivastava discloses systems and methods for recovering lost audio packets using a semantic model, but fails to recite explicit messaging to indicate the drop. Ikeda discloses a packet recovery system and method, including both intentionally dropped packets and explicit messages. However, Ikeda teaches said dropped packets occur at the gateway, rather than as part of the media center. Reibman discloses intentionally dropping packets and subsequent packet recovery as part of an integrated server architecture, which allows the media source to proactively manage its own downstream network congestion and drop packets prior to transport, thereby efficiently maintaining a desired quality of video” without relying on separate downstream middleboxes and simultaneously reducing unnecessary traffic between the media server and the middlebox, as recognized by Reibman. (Reibman, ¶ [0022], [0062]).
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. Srivastava, Ikeda, and Reibman discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Srivastava fails to expressly recite wherein outputting the indication that the one or more data packets have been dropped comprises: including, in one or more data packets of the output set of data packets, a field including the indication that the one or more data packets have been dropped.
The relevance of Ikeda is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 20, Ikeda teaches wherein outputting the indication that the one or more data packets have been dropped comprises: including, in one or more data packets of the output set of data packets, a field including the indication that the one or more data packets have been dropped ("the packet discard notification message... is not necessarily a single message, and the message may be any other message having a field including information indicative of the discard of a packet" where, as explained with reference to an example, "the field including information indicative of the discard of a packet... may be superimposed onto another message for any other purpose," (i.e., embedded in the media data packets); Ikeda, ¶ [0078], [0242]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the semantic network data correction of Srivastava to incorporate the teachings of Ikeda to include wherein outputting the indication that the one or more data packets have been dropped comprises: including, in one or more data packets of the output set of data packets, a field including the indication that the one or more data packets have been dropped. Srivastava discloses systems and methods for recovering lost audio packets using a semantic model, but fails to recite explicit messaging to indicate the drop. Ikeda discloses a packet recovery system and method where “when the packet is actually discarded, the mobile terminal as the packet receiving node is notified thereof” allowing the system to recover the lost packet through known recovery means, “so that the mobile terminal can improve communication efficiency without wasting retransmission latency in vain,” which provides the known benefit of reducing unnecessary network traffic, as recognized by Ikeda. (Ikeda, ¶ [0012]-[0013]).
Regarding claim 21, the rejection of claim 20 is incorporated. Srivastava, Ikeda, and Reibman discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Srivastava fails to expressly recite wherein the field comprises a bit flag.
The relevance of Ikeda is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 21, Ikeda teaches wherein the field comprises a bit flag (regarding "receiving and not receiving a packet discard notification" the system includes that "a packet discard notification flag" may be "set to ON" or "set to OFF" and where the discard notification can be a "field...indicative of the discard of a packet" which is "superimposed onto another message"; Ikeda, ¶ [0065], [0078], [0242]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the semantic network data correction of Srivastava to incorporate the teachings of Ikeda to include wherein the field comprises a bit flag. Srivastava discloses systems and methods for recovering lost audio packets using a semantic model, but fails to recite explicit messaging to indicate the drop. Ikeda discloses a packet recovery system and method where “when the packet is actually discarded, the mobile terminal as the packet receiving node is notified thereof” allowing the system to recover the lost packet through known recovery means, “so that the mobile terminal can improve communication efficiency without wasting retransmission latency in vain,” which provides the known benefit of reducing unnecessary network traffic, as recognized by Ikeda. (Ikeda, ¶ [0012]-[0013]).
Regarding claim 26, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. Srivastava, Ikeda, and Reibman discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Srivastava further discloses further comprising: outputting, in one or more data packets of the set of data packets, an indication that the one or more data packets are usable to generate a portion of the sequence of audio data using the semantic model (The sender outputs “semantic data 110 corresponding to the data stream 120” which is received at “the receiver 150” where the semantic data incorporates the “meaning embedded in the information transmitted” and said semantic data comprises an indication of whether one or more data packets are usable (as shown with relation to the decision to deprioritize (drop), and where the “compact codes” are applied to determine that the dropped packet can be resolved through “interpolation between surrounding packets, or by extrapolation from previous N packets,” which otherwise would have required retransmission to resolve.); Srivastava, ¶ [0029], [0036], [0062]).
Regarding claim 28, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. Srivastava, Ikeda, and Reibman discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Srivastava further discloses further comprising: refraining, based at least in part on outputting the indication of the semantic model, from retransmitting one or more data packets of the set of data packets (Though not expressly recited as “refraining from transmitting a retransmission request”, the disclosure describes the benefits of this system over the prior art with relation to avoiding retransmission requests (e.g., “systems and techniques also reduce network congestion due to retransmissions via the more effective data error correction”), where successful reconstruction is understood to directly correlate with refraining from retransmitting the one or more data packets.; Srivastava, ¶ [0032]).
Regarding claim 29, Srivastava discloses An apparatus for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), comprising (Systems and methods described with reference to "semantic network data correction" with respect to a receiver 150 as implemented in a "machine 1200"; Srivastava, ¶ [0033]-[0034], [0099]): a processor; memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor (The "machine 1200" can include "a hardware processor 1202" and "a main memory 1204", which may be collectively referred to as machine readable media "on which is stored one or more sets of data structures or instructions 1224 (e.g., software)...for execution by the machine 1200 and that cause the machine 1200 to perform any one or more of the techniques of the present disclosure"; Srivastava, ¶ [0099], [0101]-[0103]) to cause the apparatus to: receive an indication of a semantic model to use for processing data packets to be received at the UE, ("At the receiver 150, the processing circuitry 140 is configured to receive—for example, from the network interface 135—the semantic data 110 corresponding to the data stream 120" where "the sender 105 is configured to extract the semantic data 110 from the data stream 120 before transmission" where the semantic data incorporates the meaning embedded in the information transmitted and said semantic data comprises an indication of a semantic model, described as "compact codes" which "signal to the receiver how a missing packet may be inferred," and, as described with reference to an example, the receiving device receives an indication, through the received semantic data, to use the specified "applicable feature sets" or "interpolation logic" where the application is part of the UE, and the semantic codes and logic (derived from the supervised learning model in [0049]) that control the interpolation constitute the semantic model. The interpolation is simply the mechanism of generation used by the semantic model.; Srivastava, ¶ [0036]) wherein the semantic model is determinative of incomplete audio data ("semantic data 110" is extracted "from the data stream 120 by, for example, the sender 105 or by an originator of the data in the data stream 120" where "the sender 105 is configured to extract the semantic data 110 from the data stream 120 before transmission" and where "packets... may be degraded in value" as determined "based on the semantic data," which results in "deprioritization" (e.g., dropped or missing packets) and the interpolation/extrapolation logic is selected based on the packets in light of the semantic data; Srivastava, ¶ [0036], [0044], [0049], [0062]) based on a meaning of known audio data (the semantic data incorporates the "meaning embedded in the information transmitted" and where the information transmitted is applied to grade the packets.; Srivastava, ¶ [0036], [0019], [0041]); receive a set of data packets that encodes a first portion of a sequence of audio data ("At the receiver 150, the processing circuitry 140 is configured to receive... the semantic data 110 corresponding to the data stream 120" and "the data stream 120" comprising packets, where "The data stream 120 includes the data being transferred from the sender 105 to the receiver 150 on a first channel 125."; Srivastava, ¶ [0036]-[0037], [0062]); receive…[an indication] that one or more data packets encoding a second portion of the sequence of audio data have been dropped… ("When actual data packet is found missing, the codes in the alternate packet signal to the receiver how a missing packet may be inferred by interpolation between surrounding packets, or by extrapolation from previous N packets," where the codes signaling to the receiver about how to replace a missing packet is also an indication that one or more packets have been dropped when viewed in combination with the data stream, and where the existence of a missing packet can include an audio packet being dropped.; Srivastava, ¶ [0062]) ; and generate, using the semantic model and one or more data packets of the set of data packets, the second portion of the sequence of audio data ("When [an] actual data packet is found missing, the codes in the alternate packet signal to the receiver how a missing packet may be inferred by interpolation between surrounding packets, or by extrapolation from previous N packets," where "may be done when content is interpolation/extrapolation amenable" for "speech packets in which missing information may be filled in by a receiver side processing circuitry based on guidance from the sender side" where "packets... may be degraded in value" as determined "based on the semantic data," which results in "deprioritization" (e.g., dropped or missing packets) and the semantic model provides the relied on semantic data.; Srivastava, ¶ [0062]) based on failing to receive the second portion, (Teaches that "the codes in the alternate packet...may be inferred by interpolation between surrounding packets, or by extrapolation from previous N packets" based on the "actual data packet" being "found missing," where "missing information may be filled in by a receiver side process circuitry" and explicitly states that the filling is performed for "speech packets"; Srivastava, ¶ [0062]) wherein the second portion is in addition to the first portion (The missing information of the deprioritized packet(s) is distinct from the surround/previous packets.; Srivastava, ¶ [0062]), and wherein the second portion is generated using the semantic model based at least in part on…[the indication] that the one or more data packets encoding the second portion have been dropped by the media server (In this case, the second portion would be generated based on the codes in the alternate packet, and "correcting the error using the semantic data includes providing the semantic data" to an application, which may be a "neural network" which "is trained to produce a correct version of the packet" and where the "error is corrected as each packet is received" where the sender is described generically as a server or a server machine, which in the context of transmitting media, is understood as a media server; Srivastava, ¶ [0062], [0068], [0097]-[0098], [0100]). However, Srivastava fails to expressly recite receive a message indicating that one or more data packets encoding a second portion of the sequence of audio data have been dropped by a media server, [wherein the indication is]...the message indicating that the one or more data packets encoding the second portion have been dropped by a media server.
The relevance of Ikeda is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 29, Ikeda teaches receive a message indicating that one or more data packets encoding a second portion of the sequence of audio data have been dropped… ("the PGW 200" can "discard target packets (step S206)," and "a Packet Discard notification message (Discard notification) is transmitted to the UE 100 (step S207)"; Ikeda, ¶ [0078]), [wherein the indication is]...the message indicating that the one or more data packets encoding the second portion have been dropped ("The UE 100 that received the Packet Discard notification message performs recovery processing on the discarded packets" where the recovery processing can include "the discarded packet" being "estimated and generated from data already received to regenerate the entire data", such as by data interpolation, or by other methods incorporating "contents extracted from previous and following packets"; Ikeda, ¶ [0078], [0080], [0097]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the semantic network data correction of Srivastava to incorporate the teachings of Ikeda to include receive a message indicating that one or more data packets encoding a second portion of the sequence of audio data have been dropped, [wherein the indication is]...the message indicating that the one or more data packets encoding the second portion have been dropped. Srivastava discloses systems and methods for recovering lost audio packets using a semantic model, but fails to recite explicit messaging to indicate the drop. Ikeda discloses a packet recovery system and method where “when the packet is actually discarded, the mobile terminal as the packet receiving node is notified thereof” allowing the system to recover the lost packet through known recovery means, “so that the mobile terminal can improve communication efficiency without wasting retransmission latency in vain,” which provides the known benefit of reducing unnecessary network traffic, as recognized by Ikeda. (Ikeda, ¶ [0012]-[0013]). However, Srivastava and Ikeda fail to expressly recite wherein one or more data packets encoding a second portion of the sequence of audio data have been dropped by a media server.
The relevance of Reibman is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 29, Reibman teaches wherein one or more data packets encoding a second portion of the sequence of audio data have been dropped by a media server (Discloses a "management system 130" which can be "part of a communication device that is transmitting or receiving the video, including an STB, a service provider server, a mobile communication device, and so forth" where video is understood to refer to both video and audio content in conjunction, where "the management system 130 can be used to alleviate traffic congestion or otherwise reduce the number of packets being transported for a video" by "predict[ing] which (if any) packets" may be "otherwise dropped based on the scene information" and "then drop[ping] the selected packets".; Reibman, ¶ [0014], [0022]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the semantic network data correction of Srivastava , as modified by the dropped packet messaging systems of Ikeda, to incorporate the teachings of Reibman to include wherein one or more data packets encoding a second portion of the sequence of audio data have been dropped by a media server. Srivastava discloses systems and methods for recovering lost audio packets using a semantic model, but fails to recite explicit messaging to indicate the drop. Ikeda discloses a packet recovery system and method, including both intentionally dropped packets and explicit messages. However, Ikeda teaches said dropped packets occur at the gateway, rather than as part of the media center. Reibman discloses intentionally dropping packets and subsequent packet recovery as part of an integrated server architecture, which allows the media source to proactively manage its own downstream network congestion and drop packets prior to transport, thereby efficiently maintaining a desired quality of video” without relying on separate downstream middleboxes and simultaneously reducing unnecessary traffic between the media server and the middlebox, as recognized by Reibman. (Reibman, ¶ [0022], [0062]).
Regarding claim 30, Srivastava discloses An apparatus for wireless communications at a media server, comprising (Systems and methods described with reference to "semantic network data correction" with respect to a sender 105 as implemented in a "machine 1200"; Srivastava, ¶ [0033]-[0034], [0099]): a processor; memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor (The "machine 1200" can include "a hardware processor 1202" and "a main memory 1204", which may be collectively referred to as machine readable media "on which is stored one or more sets of data structures or instructions 1224 (e.g., software)...for execution by the machine 1200 and that cause the machine 1200 to perform any one or more of the techniques of the present disclosure"; Srivastava, ¶ [0099], [0101]-[0103]) to cause the apparatus to: output an indication of a semantic model to use for processing data packets to be received at a user equipment (UE), ("The data stream 120 includes...the semantic data 110" which is "transmitted on a second channel 115" where "the sender 105 is configured to extract the semantic data 110 from the data stream 120 before transmission" where the semantic data incorporates the meaning embedded in the information transmitted and said semantic data comprises an indication of a semantic model, described as "compact codes" which "signal to the receiver how a missing packet may be inferred," and, as described with reference to an example, the receiving device receives an indication, through the received semantic data, to use the specified "applicable feature sets" or "interpolation logic" where the application is part of the UE, and the semantic codes and logic (derived from the supervised learning model in [0049]) that control the interpolation constitute the semantic model. The interpolation is simply the mechanism of generation used by the semantic model.; Srivastava, ¶ [0035]-[0036], [0049], [0062]) wherein the semantic model is determinative of incomplete audio data ("semantic data 110" is extracted "from the data stream 120 by, for example, the sender 105 or by an originator of the data in the data stream 120" where "the sender 105 is configured to extract the semantic data 110 from the data stream 120 before transmission" and where "packets... may be graded in value" as determined "based on the semantic data," which can result in "deprioritization" (e.g., dropped or missing packets) and the interpolation/extrapolation logic is selected based on the packets in light of the semantic data; Srivastava, ¶ [0036], [0044], [0049], [0062]) based on a meaning of known audio data (the semantic data incorporates the "meaning embedded in the information transmitted" and where the information transmitted is applied to grade the packets.; Srivastava, ¶ [0036], [0019], [0062]); encode, using the semantic model, a sequence of audio data into a set of data packets ("The data stream 120 includes the data being transferred from the sender 105 to the receiver 150 on a first channel 125" where the data stream is encoded as data packets including "very compact codes, which are then piggybacked on alternate packets"; Srivastava, ¶ [0035]-[0036]; [0062]); output at least a subset of the set of data packets (The data packets of the data stream or portions thereof are output from the sender 105 to the receiver 150.; Srivastava, ¶ [0035]-[0036]; [0062]). However, Srivastava fails to expressly recite drop one or more data packets of the set of data packets; and output an indication that the one or more data packets encoding the sequence of audio data have been dropped by the media server.
The relevance of Ikeda is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 30, Ikeda teaches drop one or more data packets of the set of data packets ("the PGW 200" can "discard target packets (step S206)," and "a Packet Discard notification message (Discard notification) is transmitted to the UE 100 (step S207)"; Ikeda, ¶ [0078]); and output an indication that the one or more data packets encoding the sequence of audio data have been dropped… ("the PGW 200" can "discard target packets (step S206)," such as "when a flow of packets exceeding MBR or AMBR due to congestion of incoming packets or the like are detected" and "a Packet Discard notification message (Discard notification) is transmitted to the UE 100 (step S207)"; Ikeda, ¶ [0078]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the semantic network data correction of Srivastava to incorporate the teachings of Ikeda to include drop one or more data packets of the set of data packets; and output an indication that the one or more data packets encoding the sequence of audio data have been dropped. Srivastava discloses systems and methods for recovering lost audio packets using a semantic model, but fails to recite explicit messaging to indicate the drop. Ikeda discloses a packet recovery system and method where “when the packet is actually discarded, the mobile terminal as the packet receiving node is notified thereof” allowing the system to recover the lost packet through known recovery means, “so that the mobile terminal can improve communication efficiency without wasting retransmission latency in vain,” which provides the known benefit of reducing unnecessary network traffic, as recognized by Ikeda. (Ikeda, ¶ [0012]-[0013]). However, Srivastava and Ikeda fail to expressly recite wherein one or more data packets encoding the sequence of audio data have been dropped by a media server.
The relevance of Reibman is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 30, Reibman teaches wherein one or more data packets encoding the sequence of audio data have been dropped by a media server (Discloses a "management system 130" which can be "part of a communication device that is transmitting or receiving the video, including an STB, a service provider server, a mobile communication device, and so forth" where video is understood to refer to both video and audio content in conjunction, where "the management system 130 can be used to alleviate traffic congestion or otherwise reduce the number of packets being transported for a video" by "predict[ing] which (if any) packets" may be "otherwise dropped based on the scene information" and "then drop[ping] the selected packets".; Reibman, ¶ [0014], [0022]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the semantic network data correction of Srivastava , as modified by the dropped packet messaging systems of Ikeda, to incorporate the teachings of Reibman to include wherein one or more data packets encoding the sequence of audio data have been dropped by a media server. Srivastava discloses systems and methods for recovering lost audio packets using a semantic model, but fails to recite explicit messaging to indicate the drop. Ikeda discloses a packet recovery system and method, including both intentionally dropped packets and explicit messages. However, Ikeda teaches said dropped packets occur at the gateway, rather than as part of the media center. Reibman discloses intentionally dropping packets and subsequent packet recovery as part of an integrated server architecture, which allows the media source to proactively manage its own downstream network congestion and drop packets prior to transport, thereby efficiently maintaining a desired quality of video” without relying on separate downstream middleboxes and simultaneously reducing unnecessary traffic between the media server and the middlebox, as recognized by Reibman. (Reibman, ¶ [0022], [0062]).
Regarding claim 31, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Srivastava, Ikeda, and Reibman discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Srivastava fails to expressly recite wherein the message indicates that the one or more data packets encoding the second portion of the sequence of audio data have been intentionally dropped by the media server.
The relevance of Ikeda is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 31, Ikeda teaches wherein the message indicates that the one or more data packets encoding the second portion of the sequence of audio data have been intentionally dropped … (Though not expressly recited as "intentionally", the system discloses with reference to at least one example, that, in response to detected network conditions, "the PGW 200 discards target packets (step S206)," and in response to the discarding of packets, "a Packet Discard notification message (Discard notification) is transmitted" by the PGW 200, "to the UE 100 (step S207)," to inform the UE of the dropped packet and provide information such that the UE, for example, can regenerate the discarded packet.; Ikeda, ¶ [0078]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the semantic network data correction of Srivastava to incorporate the teachings of Ikeda to include wherein the message indicates that the one or more data packets encoding the second portion of the sequence of audio data have been intentionally dropped. Srivastava discloses systems and methods for recovering lost audio packets using a semantic model, but fails to recite explicit messaging to indicate the drop. Ikeda discloses a packet recovery system and method where “when the packet is actually discarded, the mobile terminal as the packet receiving node is notified thereof” allowing the system to recover the lost packet through known recovery means, “so that the mobile terminal can improve communication efficiency without wasting retransmission latency in vain,” which provides the known benefit of reducing unnecessary network traffic, as recognized by Ikeda. (Ikeda, ¶ [0012]-[0013]). However, Srivastava and Ikeda fail to expressly recite the one or more data packets encoding the second portion of the sequence of audio data have been intentionally dropped by the media server.
The relevance of Reibman is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 31, Reibman teaches the one or more data packets encoding the second portion of the sequence of audio data have been intentionally dropped by the media server (The "management system 130" in originating/transmitting the data packets as described above, "can be used to alleviate traffic congestion or otherwise reduce the number of packets being transported for a video" by "predict[ing] which (if any) packets" may be "otherwise dropped based on the scene information" and "then drop[ping] the selected packets".; Reibman, ¶ [0014], [0022]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the semantic network data correction of Srivastava, as modified by the dropped packet messaging systems of Ikeda, to incorporate the teachings of Reibman to include the one or more data packets encoding the second portion of the sequence of audio data have been intentionally dropped by the media server. Srivastava discloses systems and methods for recovering lost audio packets using a semantic model, but fails to recite explicit messaging to indicate the drop. Ikeda discloses a packet recovery system and method, including both intentionally dropped packets and explicit messages. However, Ikeda teaches said dropped packets occur at the gateway, rather than as part of the media center. Reibman discloses intentionally dropping packets and subsequent packet recovery as part of an integrated server architecture, which allows the media source to proactively manage its own downstream network congestion and drop packets prior to transport, thereby efficiently maintaining a desired quality of video” without relying on separate downstream middleboxes and simultaneously reducing unnecessary traffic between the media server and the middlebox, as recognized by Reibman. (Reibman, ¶ [0022], [0062]).
Claims 8 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava, Ikeda, and Reibman as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Chia.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Srivastava, Ikeda, and Reibman discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Srivastava fails to expressly recite wherein receiving the indication that the one or more data packets are usable comprises: receiving, in the one or more data packets, a respective field including the indication that a corresponding data packet is usable.
Chia teaches systems and methods for “selecting an error concealment method for concealing errors in real-time streaming signals.” (Chia, ¶ [0001]). Regarding claim 8, Chia teaches wherein receiving the indication that the one or more data packets are usable comprises: receiving, in the one or more data packets, a respective field including the indication that a corresponding data packet is usable (“The error concealment selection module 73 determines whether the packets received from the audio packet decoding unit 72 are good packets or loss packets” and “a packet contains the packet header” including “the error indicator flag added to the header {a respective field}” which denotes whether the packet is good or loss (dropped) packets {indication that a corresponding data packet is usable}.; Chia, ¶ [0136]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the semantic network data correction of Srivastava, as modified by the dropped packet messaging systems of Ikeda, and as modified by the integrated media server prioritization systems of Reibman, to incorporate the teachings of Chia to include wherein receiving the indication that the one or more data packets are usable comprises: receiving, in the one or more data packets, a respective field including the indication that a corresponding data packet is usable. Chia discloses error concealment selection “based on the loss error pattern and such current conditions as the network and resource level,” which enables the system “to select the most appropriate method” for error concealment “and thereby maximize use of known error concealment methods,” which achieves superior results over prior art non-selected error concealment, as recognized by Chia. (Chia, ¶ [0007]-[0008]).
Regarding claim 27, the rejection of claim 26 is incorporated. Srivastava, Ikeda, and Reibman discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Srivastava fails to expressly recite wherein outputting the indication that the one or more data packets are usable comprises: including, in the one or more data packets, a respective field including the indication that a corresponding data packet is usable.
The relevance of Chia is described above with relation to claim 8. Regarding claim 27, Chia teaches wherein outputting the indication that the one or more data packets are usable comprises: including, in the one or more data packets, a respective field including the indication that a corresponding data packet is usable (“The error concealment selection module 73 determines whether the packets received from the audio packet decoding unit 72 are good packets or loss packets” and “a packet contains the packet header” including “the error indicator flag added to the header” which denotes whether the packet is good or loss (dropped) packets.; Chia, ¶ [0136]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the semantic network data correction of Srivastava, as modified by the dropped packet messaging systems of Ikeda, and as modified by the integrated media server prioritization systems of Reibman, to incorporate the teachings of Chia to include wherein outputting the indication that the one or more data packets are usable comprises: including, in the one or more data packets, a respective field including the indication that a corresponding data packet is usable. Chia discloses error concealment selection “based on the loss error pattern and such current conditions as the network and resource level,” which enables the system “to select the most appropriate method” for error concealment “and thereby maximize use of known error concealment methods,” which achieves superior results over prior art non-selected error concealment, as recognized by Chia. (Chia, ¶ [0007]-[0008]).
Claims 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Srivastava, Ikeda, and Reibman discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Srivastava fails to expressly recite wherein receiving the indication of the semantic model comprises: receiving the indication of an n-gram semantic model.
Lee teaches “packet loss concealment method” incorporating a “statistical ‘n-gram’ predictive models. (Lee, ¶ [0001]). Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches wherein receiving the indication of the semantic model comprises: receiving the indication of an n-gram semantic model (“a method for performing packet loss concealment (PLC) while receiving a sequence of VoIP packets, wherein the PLC method is based on a set of statistical n-gram models”; Lee, ¶ [0023]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the semantic network data correction of Srivastava, as modified by the dropped packet messaging systems of Ikeda, and as modified by the integrated media server prioritization systems of Reibman, to incorporate the teachings of Lee to include wherein receiving the indication of the semantic model comprises: receiving the indication of an n-gram semantic model. The systems and methods of Lee include the generation of “statistical n-gram predictive models… with use of a training speech corpus” such that “packets lost during transmission are advantageously replaced based on these models,” which exploits the “the entropy of a language in acoustic space” to “provide an improved packet loss concealment (PLC) algorithm as compared to prior art PLC techniques,” as recognized by Lee. (Lee, ¶ [0008]).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Srivastava, Ikeda, and Reibman discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Srivastava fails to expressly recite wherein the indication includes a value for n of the n-gram semantic model.
The relevance of Lee is described above with relation to claim 14. Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches wherein the indication includes a value for n of the n-gram semantic model (“If... the current frame has been lost,” then the “previously stored VQ indices for the previous n−1 frames... are first retrieved” and “a VQ index representative of the lost frame is advantageously determined with use of a statistical n-gram predictive model” where the VQ index representative of the lost frame is understood as a value for n in the n-gram semantic model.; Lee, ¶ [0025]-[0026]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the semantic network data correction of Srivastava, as modified by the dropped packet messaging systems of Ikeda, and as modified by the integrated media server prioritization systems of Reibman, to incorporate the teachings of Lee to include wherein the indication includes a value for n of the n-gram semantic model. The systems and methods of Lee include the generation of “statistical n-gram predictive models… with use of a training speech corpus” such that “packets lost during transmission are advantageously replaced based on these models,” which exploits the “the entropy of a language in acoustic space” to “provide an improved packet loss concealment (PLC) algorithm as compared to prior art PLC techniques,” as recognized by Lee. (Lee, ¶ [0008]).
Claims 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Davies.
Regarding claim 22, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. Srivastava, Ikeda, and Reibman discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Srivastava fails to expressly recite wherein encoding the sequence of audio data comprises: determining whether audio data of a first data packet of the set of data packets is predictable using the semantic model; and refraining from outputting the first data packet based at least in part on determining that the first data packet is predictable.
Davies teaches audio data compensation in response to packet losses. (Davies, ¶ [0001]-[0002]). Regarding claim 22, Davies teaches wherein encoding the sequence of audio data comprises: determining whether audio data of a first data packet of the set of data packets is predictable using the semantic model (The system responds to packet loss by performing “intelligibility analysis and semantic analysis to identify the underlying word or phoneme that was spoken or has caused a particular audio element to be generated”, and the system determines a “prediction probability of correctly compensating for the voice data loss/degradation” where the “generation of the audio element can depend on contextual information, semantic and grammatical information {is predictable using the semantic model}”; Davies, ¶ [0002], [0033]-[0034], [0053]); and refraining from outputting the first data packet based at least in part on determining that the first data packet is predictable (“If the server 102 determines that the prediction probability of correctly compensating for the voice data loss/degradation is not greater than a predetermined probability threshold, the server 102 employs the first voice data loss/degradation compensating logic 210 (FIG. 2) to compensate for the voice data loss/degradation by inserting noise, e.g., pink noise, to the received voice data to produce compensated voice data” where inserting noise for a lost packet {the first data packet} is not outputting the lost packet {refrain from outputting} and the generation of the noise is based on receiving the indication that the prediction probability is less than a threshold.; Davies, ¶ [0035]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the semantic network data correction of Srivastava, as modified by the dropped packet messaging systems of Ikeda, and as modified by the integrated media server prioritization systems of Reibman, to incorporate the teachings of Davies to include wherein encoding the sequence of audio data comprises: determining whether audio data of a first data packet of the set of data packets is predictable using the semantic model; and refraining from outputting the first data packet based at least in part on determining that the first data packet is predictable. Davies discloses forwarding of packets and/or packet processing based on prediction of the probability for correctly compensating for the voice data loss or poor intelligibility, which can “improve intelligibility of speech” in a variety of “voice communication environment[s],” as recognized by Davies. (Davies, ¶ [0010]-[0011]).
Regarding claim 23, the rejection of claim 22 is incorporated. Srivastava, Ikeda, and Reibman discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Srivastava fails to expressly recite wherein determining whether the audio data of the first data packet is predictable comprises: determining whether a probability of predicting the audio data using one or more second data packets of the set of data packets as input into the semantic model exceeds a threshold probability.
The relevance of Davies is described above with relation to claim 22. Regarding claim 23, Davies teaches wherein determining whether the audio data of the first data packet is predictable comprises: determining whether a probability of predicting the audio data using one or more second data packets of the set of data packets as input into the semantic model exceeds a threshold probability (The system determines whether “prediction probability of correctly compensating for the voice data loss/degradation” based on generation of the audio element using semantic information, “is greater than a predetermined probability threshold”; Davies, ¶ [0035], [0053]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the semantic network data correction of Srivastava, as modified by the dropped packet messaging systems of Ikeda, and as modified by the integrated media server prioritization systems of Reibman, to incorporate the teachings of Davies to include wherein determining whether the audio data of the first data packet is predictable comprises: determining whether a probability of predicting the audio data using one or more second data packets of the set of data packets as input into the semantic model exceeds a threshold probability. Davies discloses forwarding of packets and/or packet processing based on prediction of the probability for correctly compensating for the voice data loss or poor intelligibility, which can “improve intelligibility of speech” in a variety of “voice communication environment[s],” as recognized by Davies. (Davies, ¶ [0010]-[0011]).
Regarding claim 24, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. Srivastava, Ikeda, and Reibman discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Srivastava further discloses further comprising: receiving, at a first layer of the media server and from a second layer, an indication to discard a first data packet of the set of data packets (“the UE 305 may choose a primary cell for a first channel for packet data transfer using standard techniques” and “packets are transferred along with related semantic information to base station 365 (e.g., a gNodeB)” where the semantic data incorporates the “meaning embedded in the information transmitted” and said semantic data comprises an indication of whether one or more data packets are usable (as shown with relation to the packet which included an error introduced in transit which resulted in an ambiguity, and where the semantic data clarified the ambiguity which otherwise would have required retransmission to resolve.); Srivastava, ¶ [0050]). However, Srivastava fails to expressly recite refraining from outputting the first data packet based at least in part on receiving the indication to discard the first data packet.
The relevance of Davies is described above with relation to claim 22. Regarding claim 24, Davies teaches further comprising: receiving, at a first layer of the media server and from a second layer, an indication to discard a first data packet of the set of data packets (The server determines based on received voice data from UE “whether prediction probability of correctly compensating for the voice data loss/degradation is greater than a predetermined probability threshold”; Davies, ¶ [0034]-[0035]); and refraining from outputting the first data packet based at least in part on receiving the indication to discard the first data packet (“If the server 102 determines that the prediction probability of correctly compensating for the voice data loss/degradation is not greater than a predetermined probability threshold, the server 102 employs the first voice data loss/degradation compensating logic 210 (FIG. 2) to compensate for the voice data loss/degradation by inserting noise, e.g., pink noise, to the received voice data to produce compensated voice data” where inserting noise for a lost packet {the first data packet} is not outputting the lost packet {refrain from outputting} and the generation of the noise is based on receiving the indication that the prediction probability is less than a threshold.; Davies, ¶ [0035]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the semantic network data correction of Srivastava, as modified by the dropped packet messaging systems of Ikeda, and as modified by the integrated media server prioritization systems of Reibman, to incorporate the teachings of Davies to include refraining from outputting the first data packet based at least in part on receiving the indication to discard the first data packet. Davies discloses forwarding of packets and/or packet processing based on prediction of the probability for correctly compensating for the voice data loss or poor intelligibility, which can “improve intelligibility of speech” in a variety of “voice communication environment[s],” as recognized by Davies. (Davies, ¶ [0010]-[0011]).
Regarding claim 25, the rejection of claim 24 is incorporated. Srivastava, Ikeda, and Reibman discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Srivastava further discloses wherein the second layer is a radio resource control layer (“The sender 105 (e.g., transmitter) also includes processing circuitry, a memory, and a network interface. As illustrated, the sender 105 is a cellular base station (e.g., a gNodeB in accordance with the 3GPP 5G nomenclature), however any sender of data may be used in this role,” where gNodeB is the network side counterpart for a radio resource control (RRC) layer in the UEs (i.e., gNodeB’s fundamental role in a 5G system is to manage the radio access network, through interaction with the RRC protocol in the UEs); Srivastava, ¶ [0034]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean E. Serraguard whose telephone number is (313)446-6627. The examiner can normally be reached 07:00-17:00 M-F.
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, Daniel C. Washburn can be reached at (571) 272-5551. 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.
/Sean E Serraguard/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657