DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communications filed on November 13, 2025. Claims 1, 8, 15, and 22 have been amended. Claims 1-28 are pending in the application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kunigita et al. (WO 2012/049833, see publication US 2013/0223813 of corresponding U.S. application for citations) in view of Karczewicz et al. (US 2004/0114684).
Regarding Claim 1, Kunigita teaches a method comprising:
receiving a first data stream having a first switching point, wherein the first data stream is associated with content encoded at a first bit rate (“The acquisition unit 20 sequentially receives, in units of chunks, a first video stream in which a moving image is coded by a first bit rate (S10)” – See [0054]; “The upper row in the figure shows a video stream coded at a bit rate X (e.g., 8 Mbps)” – See [0024]; “A sync sample is a sample (picture) that allows all subsequent samples to be correctly decoded when decoding is started from the sample and corresponds to an IDR picture in AVC (Advanced Video Coding)” – See [0023]; “a first picture of a chunk is a sync sample (e.g., an IDR picture in AVC)” – See [0025]; “(PTS=190 K) of a sync sample of a chunk X-3” – See [0027]; See also Fig. 1B; The device receives a first data stream encoded at bit rate X (first bit rate), wherein the first data stream has a PTS/sync sample 190 K (first switching point));
receiving a second switching point for a second data stream associated with the content encoded at a second bit rate different from the first bit rate (“the acquisition unit 20 receives the second video stream instead of the first video stream in units of chunks from the moving image distribution server 10 (S18)” – See [0077]; “The lower row in the figure shows a video stream coded at a bit rate Y (e.g., 4 Mbps)” – See [0024]; “(PTS=160 K) of a sync sample of a chunk Y-3” – See [0027]; The device receives a second data stream encoded at bit rate Y (second bit rate), wherein the second data stream has a PTS/sync sample 160 K (second switching point));
determining, based on the first switching point and the second switching point, a similarity metric based on a frame type for at least a portion of the second data stream (“It is also assumed that a first picture of a chunk is a sync sample (e.g., an IDR picture in AVC)” – See [0025]; “FIG. 1B illustrates an example where the PTSs of respective sync samples do not match each other. It is now assumed that the type of a video stream to be reproduced is switched to a bit rate Y during the reproduction of a chunk X-2 in the figure. In the figure, neither the position (PTS=160 K) of a sync sample of a chunk Y-3 nor the position (PTS=310 K) of a sync sample of a chunk Y-4 matches the position (PTS=190 K) of a sync sample of a chunk X-3” – See [0027]; “The present embodiment suggests a moving image reproduction technology in which, when a reproduction target is switched to a video stream of a bit rate Y during the reproduction of a chunk (e.g., chunk X-2) in a video stream of a bit rate X, pictures (e.g., pictures of PTS of from 160 K to 190 K) that overlap with pictures displayed by the reproduction of the chunk X-2 among pictures included in a chunk (e.g., chunk Y-3)” – See [0028]; The device determines, based on an IDR frame in the first stream that has PTS 190 K (first switching point) and an IDR frame in the second stream that has PTS 160 K (second switching point), a number of overlapping pictures (similarity metric) between the first and second stream. Thus, the similarity metric is determined based on IDR frames (a frame type) within the first and second streams); and
switching, based on the similarity metric, playback from a first fragment of the first data stream to a second fragment of the second data stream (“The present embodiment suggests a moving image reproduction technology in which, when a reproduction target is switched to a video stream of a bit rate Y during the reproduction of a chunk (e.g., chunk X-2) in a video stream of a bit rate X, pictures (e.g., pictures of PTS of from 160 K to 190 K) that overlap with pictures displayed by the reproduction of the chunk X-2 among pictures included in a chunk (e.g., chunk Y-3) in a video stream of the bit rate Y are hidden. This prevents overlapping images from being displayed repeatedly and prevents images to be originally displayed from being hidden at the time of changing the type of a video stream even when the PTSs of respective sync samples do not match among video streams of different bit rates” – See [0028]; “The skip determination unit 36 determines a non-display range (PTS value range) by setting, among pictures included in the chunks of the second video stream, pictures that overlap with pictures included in the chunks of the first video stream being reproduced by the reproduction unit 40 to be not displayed (S20). The reproduction control unit 38 provides chunks of the second video stream to the reproduction unit 40 and instructs selection reproduction while specifying the non-display range (S22)” – See [0077]; The device switches playback from chunk X-2 (first fragment) of the first stream to chunk Y-3 (second fragment) of the second stream while hiding the overlapping pictures in order to prevent the pictures/frames from being repeatedly displayed. Thus, the switching to the second stream is based on the number of overlapping pictures (similarity metric)).
Kunigita does not explicitly teach that the similarity metric indicates similarity of frame types of frames of the first data stream and the second data stream.
However, Karczewicz teaches that the similarity metric indicates similarity of frame types of frames of the first data stream and the second data stream (“The invention is based on the idea that correct (mismatch-free) switching between video streams is enabled by forming a new type of a compressed video frame and inserting frames of the new type into video bit-streams at locations where switching from one bit-stream to another is to be allowed” – See [0028]; “As mentioned above, S-frames are placed in the bit stream during the encoding process at those locations within the video sequences where switching from one bit stream to another is allowed” – See [0051]; See also Fig. 5; The similarity metric indicates a similarity of frame types (e.g., S-frames) between first stream 510 and second stream 520).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kunigita such that the similarity metric indicates similarity of frame types of frames of the first data stream and the second data stream. Motivation for doing so would be to enable switching between streams at locations other than I-frames. Thus, improved error recovery and resiliency are provided (See Karczewicz, [0029]).
Regarding Claim 2, Kunigita in view of Karczewicz teaches the method of Claim 1. Karczewicz further teaches that the similarity metric indicates a similarity between a frame type of a first frame at the first switching point and a frame type of a second frame at the second switching point (“The invention is based on the idea that correct (mismatch-free) switching between video streams is enabled by forming a new type of a compressed video frame and inserting frames of the new type into video bit-streams at locations where switching from one bit-stream to another is to be allowed” – See [0028]; “As mentioned above, S-frames are placed in the bit stream during the encoding process at those locations within the video sequences where switching from one bit stream to another is allowed” – See [0051]; See also Fig. 5; The similarity metric indicates a presence of S-frames (frame type) which both correspond to respective first and second switching points in the first and second streams).
Regarding Claim 3, Kunigita in view of Karczewicz teaches the method of Claim 1. Kunigita further teaches receiving the first switching point associated with the first fragment (“the PTS of a picture to be displayed last in the chunk is stored” – See [0060]; “The decoding target selection unit 42 receives a normal reproduction instruction from the control unit 30 along with data of a chunk of a video stream (the data is also referred to as "image compression information" hereinafter) that includes both data of a plurality of pictures that have been coded and motion vector information. For example, as header information thereof, this image compression information includes information indicating the PTS of each picture and information indicating whether each picture is a reference picture to be referred to at the time of decoding another picture or a non-reference picture that is not to be referred to at the time of decoding another picture” – See [0065]; The PTS (first switching point) is received as header information in the stream and stored).
Regarding Claim 4, Kunigita in view of Karczewicz teaches the method of Claim 1. Kunigita further teaches determining a quality of service measurement for the first data stream; and determining, based on the quality of service measurement, the second data stream (“Alternatively, the switching requirement may be a condition where a period of time required for a process of decoding a picture becomes a predetermined value or more or a condition where an available communication bandwidth or effective communication speed becomes less than a predetermined value. Conversely, a switching requirement for switching from a relatively low bit rate to a relatively high bit rate may be a condition where the CPU utilization becomes less than the predetermined threshold value. Alternatively, the switching requirement may be a condition where a period of time required for the process of decoding a picture becomes less than the predetermined value or a condition where the available communication bandwidth or effective communication speed becomes the predetermined value or more” – See [0057]; The device the switching requirement used by the device to determine to switch from the first stream to a second stream includes a quality of service measurement such as whether a period of time for decoding the picture is higher or lower than a predetermined value. Other quality of service measurements used for determining to switch streams include a CPU utilization and available communication bandwidth).
Regarding Claim 5, Kunigita in view of Karczewicz teaches the method of Claim 1. Kunigita further teaches that determining the similarity metric further comprises determining an alignment of the first switching point and the second switching point for the content (“The present embodiment suggests a moving image reproduction technology in which, when a reproduction target is switched to a video stream of a bit rate Y during the reproduction of a chunk (e.g., chunk X-2) in a video stream of a bit rate X, pictures (e.g., pictures of PTS of from 160 K to 190 K) that overlap with pictures displayed by the reproduction of the chunk X-2 among pictures included in a chunk (e.g., chunk Y-3)” – See [0028]; The number of overlapping pictures (similarity metric) indicates an alignment of the first switching point and the second switching point, wherein a smaller number of overlapping pictures indicates a closer alignment of the switching points and a larger number of overlapping pictures indicates a further alignment).
Regarding Claim 6, Kunigita in view of Karczewicz teaches the method of Claim 1. Kunigita further teaches that the first switching point comprises one of a first frame of the first fragment or a last frame of the first fragment (“(PTS: Presentation Time Stamp) of sync samples” – See [0023]; “It is also assumed that a first picture of a chunk is a sync sample (e.g., an IDR picture in AVC)” – See [0025]; The PTS (first switching point) corresponds to a first picture (first frame) of the chunk (first fragment)).
Regarding Claim 7, Kunigita in view of Karczewicz teaches the method of Claim 1. Kunigita further teaches determining a first frame comprising a first frame type at the first switching point and a second frame comprising the first frame type at the second switching point, wherein switching from the first fragment to the second fragment is further based on the first frame and the second frame comprising a same frame type (“(PTS: Presentation Time Stamp) of sync samples” – See [0023]; “It is also assumed that a first picture of a chunk is a sync sample (e.g., an IDR picture in AVC)” – See [0025]; Thus, the IDR frame at PTS 190 K (first switching point) and the IDR frame at PTS 160 K (second switching point) have the same type, wherein the switching is based on the alignment of the two IDR frames (and the number of overlapping pictures/frames therebetween) having the same type).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 1.
Claims 9, 16, and 23 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 2.
Claims 10, 17, and 24 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 3.
Claims 11, 18, and 25 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 4.
Claims 12, 19, and 26 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 5.
Claims 13, 20, and 27 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 6.
Claims 14, 21, and 28 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 7.
Claim 22 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 1. Additionally, Kunigita further teaches a computing device configured to: send a first data stream (“The moving image distribution server 10 is a server that stores a plurality of types of coded data obtained by coding moving images at a plurality of types of bit rates. In the present embodiment, it is assumed that the moving image distribution server 10 is a web server. For example, the moving image distribution server 10 stores coded data that correspond to each of bit rates of 256 Kbps, 512 Kbps, 1 Mbps, 4 Mbps, and 8 Mbps. The moving image distribution server 10 concurrently distributes a plurality of types of coded data to the moving image reproduction apparatus 12 as video streams” – See [0030]; The distribution server 10 (computing device) sends the data/video stream to reproduction apparatus 12 (user device)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on November 13, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10 of the remarks, Applicant argues “However, the S-frame of Karczewicz is not a ‘a similarity metric [that] indicates similarity of frame types of frames of the first data stream and the second data stream,’ as recited in claim 1. Applicant further submits that, as admitted by the Patent Office, Kunigita fails to cure the deficiencies of Karczewicz.
Accordingly, the Patent Office has failed to present a combination of references that disclose every limitation of the rejected claim. Therefore, the Patent Office fails to present a prima facie case of obviousness. For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims be withdrawn and such claims be allowed.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts that “the S-frame of Karczewicz is not a ‘a similarity metric [that] indicates similarity of frame types of frames of the first data stream and the second data stream.’” However, it is not the S-frame itself that indicates a similarity metric. Rather, it is the presence of S-frames in corresponding positions in each of bitstreams 1 and 2, as shown in Fig. 5 of Karczewicz. In Fig. 5, Karczewicz shows that the alignment of the S-frames 513 and 523 indicates a “similarity metric” based on frame types between bitstream 1 and bitstream 2, where the similarity metric indicates that switching from bitstream 2 to bitstream 1 is allowed.
On pages 11-12 of the remarks, Applicant argues “The Patent Office fails to provide a proper motivation to combine with reference to the independent claims. With regard to claims 1 and 8, the Patent Office simply concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art ‘modify Kunigita such that the similarity metric indicates similarity of frame types of frames of the first data stream and second data stream.’ Office Action, p. 5. The Patent Office goes on to allege, that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make such a combination ‘to enable switching at locations other than I-frames.’ Id.
Kunigita does not suffer the problem alleged by the Patent Office. As such, Applicant traverses this alleged motivation to combine also based on these grounds. Applicant submits the Patent Office is creating a problem in the primary reference, Kunigita, in order to solve the problem with the secondary reference, Karczewicz, that did not exist in the primary reference, but for the Patent Office wanting to modify the primary reference with the secondary reference in order to reject the claim. Kunigita teaches a method of switching between bitstreams using a specialized I-frame called an IDR frame. Kunigita, ¶68. Thus, Kunigita already teaches a method of switching bitstreams using an I-frame. The Patent Office fails to show or indicate any perceived benefit that not using I-frames for switching between bitstreams would provide in order to motivate a person of ordinary skill to modify the system of Kunigita. Instead, such a combination would only increase the development cost, and complexity without any real benefit to switching between one bitstream from another. As such, a person of ordinary skill would not be motivated to combine the teachings of Karczewicz with the teachings of Kunigita.
Therefore, the Patent Office has failed to properly identify the rational underpinnings required to support a conclusion of obviousness over the proposed combination of references. This is an additional reason why the independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 22, and their dependent claims, are nonobvious and allowable over the cited references. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests the rejection of the claims under § 103 be withdrawn.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kunigita discloses that the frame types of the streams include I-frames, P-frames, and B-frames as is well-known in the art (See [0068]-[0069]). Karczewicz discloses that the S-frames are provided in the bitstreams in addition to the I-frames (See [0029]). Thus, modifying Kunigita in view of the teachings of Karczewicz results in the system of Kunigita including the S-frames in addition to the I-frames, P-frames, and B-frames. As disclosed by Karczewicz, this allows switching between bitstreams to occur not only at I-frame locations, but also at the locations of the S-frames (See [0029]). Since Karczewicz discloses a new frame type that is not taught by Kunigita, Karczewicz does not “solve a problem that did not exist in the primary reference”. Karczewicz specifically points out the benefits of using S-frames in addition to I-frames for stream switching, as compared to common approaches in the prior art which only use I-frames as a switching point between streams (and as disclosed in Kunigita). As to the benefits of using Karczewicz’ S-frames for switching between streams, Karczewicz discloses that the presence of additional switching points using the S-frames provides improved error recovery and resilience. The performance gains that can be achieved using Karczewicz’ teachings would have strongly motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kunigita as described in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott M Sciacca whose telephone number is (571)270-1919. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 7:30 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. EST.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at (571) 272-3905. 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.
/SCOTT M SCIACCA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478